jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Moseley <...@osafoundation.org>
Subject Re: using one db for all filesystems and pms
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:28:41 GMT
On 1/19/06, Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:

> alternatively you could still use an embedded derby database but
> using SimpleDbPersistenceManager instead of DerbyPersistenceManager.
> note that in this case you would have to exlicitly shutdown the embedded
> derby database yourself.

this is what i was slowly convincing myself to try, so i'm glad to
hear that i was on the right track :)

> i don't think that that would be a good idea. see alternatives above.

yeah, i was confusing myself a bit. i noticed that
SimpleDbPersistenceManager.close and DbFileSystem.close close their
connections, and somehow i had the impression that all of these
components shared a single connection, so i was worried that i'd still
have one component dropping the connection for all the others. but now
i realize that each of these components maintains its own connection
and that i was scaring myself for nothing ;)

by the way, a colleague asked yesterday if there would be any benefit
to using connection pooling for these components. i assume that you'd
have implemented them with pooling from the get-go if that had been
the appropriate thing to do. is there any reasoning worth sharing in
that regard?

thanks!

Mime
View raw message