You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by "Padraic Hannon (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/11/01 00:31:51 UTC
[jira] Commented: (JCR-1050) Remove synchronization from JNDI data
sources
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12539212 ]
Padraic Hannon commented on JCR-1050:
-------------------------------------
Based on benchmarks using the DerbyPooledManager (the oracle ones where terrible! I have no idea what I was thinking) I am going to close this issue as I do not think that the problem of synchronization can be handled at this level. Using the ConcurrentReadWrite test I had almost the same number of operations with both the synchronized derbymanager and this pooled one.
> Remove synchronization from JNDI data sources
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-1050
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1050
> Project: Jackrabbit
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jackrabbit-core
> Reporter: Padraic Hannon
> Attachments: DerbyPooledPersistenceManager.java, JCR-1050.patch
>
>
> Using datasources one should be able to rely on the application server to manage PreparedStatement caches therefore pre-creating and holding onto the connection for long periods of time should not be needed. This relates to improvement JCR-313, however, that change did not address the benefits one could see in using an application server controlled datasource. Even if jackrabbit does aim to use an embedded database such a system could be configured to use datasources and could benefit from the removal of the synchronization.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.