I never realised pooling was a responsibility of the session factory? I thought the ADO.NET provider was supposed to handle that?
/Oskar 2010/7/12 chambm <[email protected]>: > I ran into this problem with SQLite with connection pooling turned on > for :memory: support. Even closing the session factory doesn't let go > of a file if pooling is on. > > So a potential use case of closing the session factory is to make it > let go of a pooled connection. I don't understand keeping the > connection after the factory closes (which is in fact the case). I > ended up just making the pooling a condition of whether the data > source was ":memory:" or not. Which is a better solution because > creating the session factory is expensive! > > -Matt > > > On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Jason Dentler <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why would you want to close the session factory? In my mind, it's sort of >> like disposing a singleton - a symptom of a larger problem. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nhusers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
