Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jruohone@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
Sender: a b <jruohone@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:52:44 +0200
From: Jukka Ruohonen <jruohonen@iki.fi>
To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: A pool question
Message-ID: <20130225085244.GA21996@marx.bitnet>
Reply-To: jruohonen@iki.fi
Mail-Followup-To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i

Hello.

A question related to pools. Background: a big application in which it is
preferable to enforce different roles for different databases and tables. 
This implies that there are different user names and passwords for different
connections. As I understand, there are two options for connection pooling
in a scheme like this:

	A. Create different resources for the different roles, each having
	   the user names and passwords defined as constants in the Tomcat
	   configuration files.

	B. Group the different roles into a bigger scheme and use the option
	   'alternateUsernameAllowed' to obtain the connections with the
	    specific user names and passwords.

Both were tested to work. But I wonder:

	1. The first option seems intuitively more efficient. But on the
	   other hand, does each Resource define its own cleaner thread?
	   I wouldn't want to overburden the setup with too many threads.

	2. Are there any benchmarks on the option B? The plain FIFO seems
	   rather inefficient if there are many different users/passwords.

Any additional thoughts?

- Jukka.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org