Rick, I think stressing the use of DBCP (with examples) in the documentation is a great idea, but I don't think the dbcp library should be included in the OpenJPA image since it isn't a required runtime dependency. Most application servers and some JDBC drivers provide their own connection pooling so the dbcp library would be a extra baggage - albeit, carry-on size :-) - for folks using OpenJPA in those environments/configurations.
-Jeremy On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Rick Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: > > After reading this > > http://terrazadearavaca.blogspot.com/2008/12/jpa-implementations-comparison.html > blog post , I decided to do some performance(ish) testing on my local > system > and I also came the conclusion that openJPA isn't the fastest out of the > box(I don't think that's a surprise to anyone). It was easy to get > something > working, but it didn't work as fast as it could/should have. Ease of use is > a high priority when a developer is trying out a new technology, but not > the > only priority. > > A steaming pile that is easy to use, is still a steaming pile. :-) > > In an attempt to make openJPA perform better out of the box, I'd like to > see > DBCP packaged with openJPA and have the docs updated to stress the use DBCP > rather than a direct DB connection. This won't add much in the way of > complexity, but it will help the performance greatly. I wrote a blog post > about this very topic that can be found > > http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/2009/01/jpa-connection-pooling.html > here . > > Any thoughts? > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Improving-out-of-the-box-performance-tp2271261p2271261.html > Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
