On 09/06/2011 15:48, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I would like to understand the requirements better: > > - Is this for pool1 and/or pool2? It seems like a big change for pool1 that > should be in a 1.6 (not 1.5.x)
pool2. No plans for this change in pool1. > - Do we have real user stories for this new req? Or is this a theoretical > nicety? The most obvious one is preventing the same object being returned to the pool more than once. POOL-103. Keeping track of all the objects in the pool opens up a range of possibilities for improved monitoring/management features. We could, for example, move the abandoned object tracking from DBCP to pool. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
