openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Bauer <techhu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Improving out of the box performance
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:31:07 GMT
 Fair enough.  :-)

I don't recall hearing anyone (except my own self) grumbling about the size
of the image and bundling these types of extras can help get folks up &
running more quickly at the expense of a slightly larger package size.
...and adding dbcp (and supporting doc) to the package may help signify the
importance of pooling and more easily facilitate its use in some
environments.

<opinion reversed/>

-Jeremy

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeremy,
> We ship the derby library and that's not a required runtime dependency.
> Yes, we depend on it for running our junit bucket (default database).  But,
> it's not required for the OpenJPA runtime.  Are you saying that we should
> remove derby from our packaging?   ;-)
>
> Kevin
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Jeremy Bauer <techhusky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > I think stressing the use of DBCP (with examples) in the documentation is
> a
> > great idea, but I don't think the dbcp library should be included in the
> > OpenJPA image since it isn't a required runtime dependency.  Most
> > application servers and some JDBC drivers provide their own connection
> > pooling so the dbcp library would be a extra baggage - albeit, carry-on
> > size
> > :-) - for folks using OpenJPA in those environments/configurations.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Rick Curtis <curtisr7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > After reading this
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://terrazadearavaca.blogspot.com/2008/12/jpa-implementations-comparison.html
> > > blog post , I decided to do some performance(ish) testing on my local
> > > system
> > > and I also came the conclusion that openJPA isn't the fastest out of
> the
> > > box(I don't think that's a surprise to anyone). It was easy to get
> > > something
> > > working, but it didn't work as fast as it could/should have. Ease of
> use
> > is
> > > a high priority when a developer is trying out a new technology, but
> not
> > > the
> > > only priority.
> > >
> > > A steaming pile that is easy to use, is still a steaming pile. :-)
> > >
> > > In an attempt to make openJPA perform better out of the box, I'd like
> to
> > > see
> > > DBCP packaged with openJPA and have the docs updated to stress the use
> > DBCP
> > > rather than a direct DB connection. This won't add much in the way of
> > > complexity, but it will help the performance greatly. I wrote a blog
> post
> > > about this very topic that can be found
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/2009/01/jpa-connection-pooling.html
> > > here .
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > >
> >
> http://n2.nabble.com/Improving-out-of-the-box-performance-tp2271261p2271261.html
> > > Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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