Re: [Proxool-developer] JMX and Frameworks (was no subject)

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

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 23:02, Andrew Budarevsky wrote:

> We could touch this. I don't see any problems. The main competitor of
> Proxool - PoolMan was jmx compatible.

Yep, it's in the plan. Christian intends to write this before 1.0. We
like JMX.

> Let's say we provide few reactions of proxool which are supposed to be
> mapped by framework proxy on framework's events. E.g.: we use a
> proxool inside of web application and we have to close connections on
> destroying of this application. We cannot wait for JVM shutdown. In
> this case web application is the framework in which the proxool is
> nested. Not the servlet engine! 

Ok. Let me be clearer. At the moment we have an adapter (if you want to
call it that) ServletConfigurator that will do this shutdown for you. It
works in Servlet Containers - obviously. I don't see any problem in
writing another adapter for other web applications.

> When the web application receives Destroy message (destroy method is
> called) it invokes shutdownHook of proxool facade. The fail-over is
> not responsibility of proxool unless it happens inside of proxool. 

"Fail-over"?

> If mentioned above web application has failed the proxool should
> receive the same shutdown message (facade shutdownHook is called) or
> another message like reinitialize the pools or what is most fit the
> requirements.

Andrew, you're going to have to resort to specifics here. This is all a
bit vague. I think the API already supports shutdown; the exact
mechanism of that shutdown must depend on the environment that Proxool
is running in.

In what way do you think current Proxool API limits you? 

(BTW, Andrew, can you include a subject in your messages to this list
please.)

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