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
|
