On 22/12/2009 07:32, Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH) wrote:
On Monday 21 December 2009 18:13:51 Mark Thomas wrote:
Konstantin's comments about the JDBC-ODBC bridge got me looking at this
more closely. There was a bug in the de-registration code that mean it
was a little over-zealous on its clean
Hi,
Later today I will tag and go for the release, make sure all the patches
you want to see in are committed :-)
It will also add binaries for tc-native
Comments?
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Monday 21 December 2009 11:12:12 jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
Later today I will tag and go for the release, make sure all the patches
you want to see in are committed :-)
Well, I'm no committer and I don't understand the relevant code well enough
to possibly create a patch, but I
On 21/12/2009 10:53, Rainer Frey wrote:
On Monday 21 December 2009 11:12:12 jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
Later today I will tag and go for the release, make sure all the patches
you want to see in are committed :-)
Well, I'm no committer and I don't understand the relevant code well
On Monday 21 December 2009 12:04:59 Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2009 10:53, Rainer Frey wrote:
[...]
but I hoped that someone would take a
look at issue https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48214
before a release is made
I hadn't forgotten that one - I just hadn't got
On 21/12/2009 14:11, Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH) wrote:
On Monday 21 December 2009 12:04:59 Mark Thomas wrote:
My guess is that you are relying on the auto-driver registration
process. It is this process that triggers the memory leak so Tomcat now
forcibly de-registers any drivers the JVM
On 21/12/2009 10:12, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
Later today I will tag and go for the release, make sure all the patches
you want to see in are committed :-)
I've finished proposing everything I'd like to see in 6.0.21. I'll try
and commit anything that gets enough votes before the tag.
On Monday 21 December 2009 15:23:42 Mark Thomas wrote:
The memory leak is caused by the DriverManager implementation. It holds
a reference to the Driver. If the Driver was loaded by the web
application then the Driver holds a reference to the WebappClassLoader.
This in turn holds references to
On Monday 21 December 2009 15:23:42 Mark Thomas wrote:
Most do, but it doesn't appear to be required. In your circumstances,
you could use a LifecycleListener defined at the container level that
just called Class.forName(String).
Hi Mark,
what do you mean with container level here?
Rainer
On 21/12/2009 15:13, Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH) wrote:
On Monday 21 December 2009 15:23:42 Mark Thomas wrote:
The memory leak is caused by the DriverManager implementation. It holds
a reference to the Driver. If the Driver was loaded by the web
application then the Driver holds a reference to
On 21/12/2009 15:59, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2009 15:13, Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH) wrote:
On Monday 21 December 2009 15:23:42 Mark Thomas wrote:
The memory leak is caused by the DriverManager implementation. It holds
a reference to the Driver. If the Driver was loaded by the web
On Monday 21 December 2009 18:13:51 Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2009 15:59, Mark Thomas wrote:
For an example of a container level lifecycle listener take a look at
this commit. That should give you the idea.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=828196
This might be
12 matches
Mail list logo
