Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jmeter.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0Va02FLNzWBF+5=UR0iwqQ4MNf6YCKXTG-NgcnvvMzVxJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOGo0Va02FLNzWBF+5=UR0iwqQ4MNf6YCKXTG-NgcnvvMzVxJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:10:37 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAH9fUpa+J636TXiWJYM1+7nvO3v9pi0xbdAsH_L1bpMiutsZ_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Excalibur pooling [was: Apache Excalibur Logger]
From: Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
To: "dev@jmeter.apache.org" <dev@jmeter.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc9db23e185404ef7cc3a5

--047d7bdc9db23e185404ef7cc3a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Reopening this thread after this bug report:

   - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55977


We have 2 options to fix this bug:

Option 1):

Upgrade excalibur libraries to 2.1

Option 2):

Switch to a new pooling implementation like Tomcat Pool (or commons-dbcp) .
Tomcat pool is more recent than commons-dbcp and is supposed to have much
better performances with high number of threads.

It has all features currently available for excalibur.

As I have said many times in the past, I personnally don't like the fact we
have some (fortunately very few  libraries of retired Apache project
(Excalibur) and would find it great to remove all excalibur related jars,
but we didn't get a consensus on this.

This time we have an opportunity which we should maybe jump at.


My 2cts.

Regards

Philippe M.


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 August 2012 21:43, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 August 2012 17:52, Milamber <milamber@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> >> I think we should really remove dependency on Apache Excalibur.
> >>
> >> We still use parts of Excalibur for JDBC pooling.
> >>
> >> I don't see the point of pooling if you are testing JDBC; it then
> >> becomes as much a test of the pool rather than JDBC.
> >>
> > Don't understand this
>
> JMeter threads are intended to represent independent users, so sharing
> JDBC connections between different threads is equivalent to sharing
> between different users. Does not make sense to me.
>
> But assumijng that there is a use case for sharing a pool between threads:
> If a JDBC performance test shows problems - is it the JDBC database,
> or the pooling implementation?
> What if the pooling implementation is different from the one in the
> application one is simulating?
>
> >>
> >> If we do want to support pooling, it should be selectable.
> >> However I don't know if there is a standard Pooling API, so that might
> >> not be possible.
> >>
> >> Why not use commons-dbcp or tomcat-pool for this ?
>
> They are just specific examples of pools; no different really from
> sticking with Excalibur.
>
> If we truly want to allow users to test pooling, they should be able
> to use any pool they wish, so they can see which one meets their needs
> best.
>
> But I suspect this will be quite tricky to allow arbitrary pooling
> implementations.
>


-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

--047d7bdc9db23e185404ef7cc3a5--