jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vijay Pandey" <vijay.k.pan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Newbie Question - Performance
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:15:50 GMT
I am planning to use the jackrabbit( as a stand alone program - not running
in app server) over the RMI, as the the same repository will be accessed
by more than 1 application server basically Model 3 server deployment.  In
this case what do you suggest is the best way to do the session pool? If we
do the session pool like using the commons-pool or something like that, do
we need to do "logout" on session before it is returned to the pool? Or do
you think JCA can be used in this scenario?

Thanks
Vijay



On 6/28/06, Edgar Poce <edgarpoce@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sorry,  I meant "pool the session", I said connections because I was
> thinking in terms of JCA where each session represents a connection to
> the repository.
> btw, if you use the jca connector you can delegate to the container
> the pooling task.
>
> br,
> edgar
>
> On 6/28/06, Vijay Pandey <vijay.k.pandey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > When you say "pool the connection", do you mean to say pool the jcr
> session
> > ?
> > For pooling the jcr session that means there should be no logout on the
> jcr
> > session?
> > or after logout do we need to return to pool -- (but this doesnt make
> sense)
> >
> > or do you mean to say pool the "jdbc connections" if we are using
> > SimpleDBPersistenceManager for storing the content?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Vijay
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/06, Edgar Poce <edgarpoce@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 6/28/06, Vijay Pandey <vijay.k.pandey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >  it's a good practice to share a single anonymous session for read
> only
> > > > access if possible, it would reduce the time that write actions will
> > > take.
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > it's not thread safe, I think you should pool the connections somehow.
> > > btw, I think that comment is out of date, I'll remove it. AFAIK it's
> > > been a while since transient items are shared among read only
> > > sessions.
> > >
> > > br,
> > > edgar
> > >
> > > > Does it mean to say that 'session' is thread safe at method level
> for
> > > read
> > > > only operations , or do we have to synchronize the call on session?
> or
> > > do
> > > > you think should we have a pool of read only sessions ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >  Vijay
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message