> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Thursday 01 August 2002 16:47, Peter Royal wrote: > > > > If we had deterministic gc, I think it might have a better > chance of > > being viable. > > aggreed! > > ...but I was more thinking non-limited pools that exists only > to reduce object > creations. Wouldn't it make sense there? > > Thinking about limited pools... would it be cool to have a fall-back > mechanism? Just a week ago it took me quite some time find out that a > component did not release a jdbc connection. > > With this fallback mechanism I could immediatly have found in > the log file > something like "WARN: releasing unused component..." without > testing the pool > against it's limit.
Remember, we need weak references in the pool to make that work. None of our pool implementations use weak references. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
