Re: [Proxool-developer] Connection Events

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

Hi Kiran,

On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 17:22, Kiran T wrote:

> I have been trying to make use of ConnectionListener events and I somehow 
> feel that the events are not comprehensive. Just for an example, I was 
> trying to make use of onDeath() to send out emails whenever connection gets 
> "killed" but I didn't want to send emails when these connections were 
> terminated naturally( ie after 4 hours of being in the pool).

I suppose we could send a code that described why the connection was
being destroyed. Off the top of my head, a connection can be killed
because:

a) it has reached its maximum lifetime (default 4 hours)
b) it has failed its house keeping test
c) it has thrown a fatal SQL exception

There might be some other cases too.

> Also, I figured out that the java.sql.Connection parameter passed to the 
> onDeath() is not the Proxool Connection but the native java.sql Connection. 
> Was there any reason to not pass proxool's connection? I normally put the 
> connection in the map while getting the connection and pop out during 
> onDeath() call. Because it was not a proxool connection I had to use 
> ProxoolFacade.getDelegateConnection() and then use it.

Hmm, I can't think of any reason not to set the Proxool connection. I
think the only reason you get a connection (in that method) is so that
you can perform a resource clean up. And I don't see why you can't do
that with a Proxool Connection. I'll have a think about the implications
of this.

> I remember an earlier discussion on splitting onExecute() to 
> onExecuteStart() and onExecuteEnd(). Thats a great idea. Would it be 
> possible to integrate in 0.9.0?

That means a change to the API and is not something we do lightly.
However, we are pre-1.0 and that is something that we are prepared to
change if there is a good reason. Your suggestions sound good to me.
Anybody going to argue against them?

Thanks for your constructive comments, Kiran.

Cheers,
Bill