> What do people think about possibly moving the code that
> reclaims abandoned connections to a separate thread, similar to idle
> object eviction?
The current solution is more defensive, only if an connection is needet and
the pool is nearly empty the abandoned process starts.
I think this is a g
> "There are several circumstances where two different pieces of code can be
> inadvertently sharing the same connection ... ."
> Is it possible in DBCP ? I believe it will not return the same connection
> instance for different threads and will not return
> connection to pool before close. Is it u
Is it used store connections in fields ?
- Original Message -
From: "Mario Ivankovits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: REVIEW: Pooled connection architecture vulnerable to double use
Hello !
I would like to know
Hello !
I would like to know what you think about my patch i added to bugzilla entry (i would
like to avoid the word "bug") http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17677
Could you please comment, if i missed something fundamental, or if you think that this
patch might do it (at least
