RE: [Proxool-developer] Bug 673073

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 22:10, Christian Nedregård wrote:

> We should not depend on finalizers at all. 

We don't. The finalizer call the "shutdown code", as does the
ShutdownHook, as does ProxoolFacade.removeAllConnectionPools.

> People that use a JVM that does not implement the hook properly will
> just have to live with the unclean shutdown I guess :( 

Yep.

> Both the housekeeper thread and the prototyping thread are run as
> daemons so they should not cause any additional problems on shutdown.

There's also a Monitor thread that logs statistics (if you configure
some statistics). But that's a daemon too, I just thought I'd mention it
for completeness.

> The real problem is shutting down the pool on application reloads. 

Yes, we need to be clear about that. It is *almost* a separate problem.

> We also need to be sure that shutting down Proxool several times in a row
> does not cause problems. In a servlet container for example,
> Servlet.destroy() will shutdown Proxool first, and then the shutdown hook
> will do it again.

It copes with that. You get a short debug message in the log saying
something like "Ignoring duplicate attempt to shutdown pool".

-- 
  Bill Horsman
  Proxool
  http://proxool.sourceforge.net
  ICQ: 119577180