db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "TomohitoNakayama" <tomon...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject Re: PooledConnection being closed
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:05:36 GMT
Hello, David .

> Hi, Tomohito.  I think I misunderstood this email as a request to 
> *backport* DERBY-412 to 10.1, but I see it's  request to *forward-port* 
> it into the trunk
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3c007201c58e14$77a1cdf0$0800a8c0@Arkat%3e

I understand your misunderstanding.
My mail seems to be misleading ..... Sorry.
Explaining myself, I was not sure which branch you are working for at first.


> I made my changes to DERBY-412 into the trunk (same as 10.2).    So I 
> don't think DERBY-412 needs to be forward-ported into the trunk, right?

Yes. I have confirmed it in next mail.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3c000d01c58f7e$da676e70$0800a8c0@Arkat%3e
And I have commited the patch to trunk.

Best regards.

/*

         Tomohito Nakayama
         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp
         tmnk@apache.org

         Naka
         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html

*/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Van Couvering" <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: PooledConnection being closed


> Hi, Tomohito.  I think I misunderstood this email as a request to 
> *backport* DERBY-412 to 10.1, but I see it's  request to *forward-port* 
> it into the trunk
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3c007201c58e14$77a1cdf0$0800a8c0@Arkat%3e
> 
> I made my changes to DERBY-412 into the trunk (same as 10.2).    So I 
> don't think DERBY-412 needs to be forward-ported into the trunk, right?
> 
> I thought perhaps it may be worthwhile to backport DERBY-412 (along with 
> DERBY-243) into 10.1.  But you are right, this is an enhancement, and 
> thus probably not the right thing to put into a maintenance branch.
> 
> David
> 
> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
> 
>> Hello.
>>
>> Seeing next mail, 
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/6132
>> I understood DERBY-412 not be fixed in 10.1 branch.
>> //I took this is not a bug , but improvement ....
>>
>> Did I misunderstand ....?
>> If needed, I will merge it to 10.1 branch after DERBY-496 was done.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> /*
>>
>>         Tomohito Nakayama
>>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>         tmnk@apache.org
>>
>>         Naka
>>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Van Couvering" 
>> <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
>> To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: PooledConnection being closed
>>
>>
>>> With the Connection.toString() that was just checked into the trunk 
>>> (and I think Tomohito backported into the 10.1 branch) you can see if 
>>> the underlying "physical" connection is the same...
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Seebregts <tonys@cibecs.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm writing a connection pool manager using the
>>>>> EmbeddedConnectionPoolDatasource class. The requesting object gets the
>>>>> Connection object from a PooledConnection  getConnection() , executes
>>>>> a SQL statement and then closes the Connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> This correctly invokes the ConnectionEventListener.close() method -
>>>>> which simply marks the pooled connection as available for reused. But
>>>>> when I try to resuse the connection originally supplied by the
>>>>> PooledConnection getConnection() method the connection is
>>>>> closed. Calling getConnection returns me a new Connection which is
>>>>> (AFAIK) not the idea.
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, the point with pooled connections is that you use
>>>> getConnection() and close() as with ordinary connections, but the
>>>> underlying physical connection is kept open. The Connection object
>>>> returned by getConnection() is a logical connection, and you cannot
>>>> use it after it is closed. If you call getConnection() again, you will
>>>> get a new logical connection, and therefore a new Connection
>>>> object. However, the new logical connection might still use the same
>>>> physical connection.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 2005/08/14
>>
>>
>>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 2005/08/14



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 2005/08/14


Mime
View raw message