Subject | Re: [Firebird-Java] Recommendation für Connection Pool |
---|---|
Author | Mark Rotteveel |
Post date | 2013-05-27T07:41:05Z |
On Sun, 26 May 2013 23:42:40 +0200, Carsten Schäfer <ca_schaefer@...>
wrote:
team replaced the use of DBCP with their own reimplementation), but unless
you need JDBC 4.l features that shouldn't matter. Both c3p0 and BoneCP are
OK, I have a slight preference for BoneCP, but that is because I have used
it more often than c3p0. Also if you use a JavaEE application server, the
connection pool is included in the AS.
Mark
wrote:
> Since the Connection Pool Classes are deprecated in the Jaybird driverAs far as I know DBCP is inactive these days (I even believe the Tomcat
> we want to switch to a driver independet Pool (although we never had any
> problems with the built in Connection pool of Jaybird).
> I took a look at c3p0, DBCP and BoneCP which are mentioned in the
> Jaybird docs.
> Is there anyone of them recommended more than another?
> The effort to change to one of them seems to be more or less equal.
> c3po seems to be actively developed and documentation also looks good so
> it would be our first choice.
> Are there any known problems in the usage with Jaybird?
> We use Java 1.7, Jaybird 2.2.3 and Firebird 2.5.2.
> For getting connections we use the datasource-approach.
> Is there anything special to consider when switch to a different pool
> like 3cp0?
team replaced the use of DBCP with their own reimplementation), but unless
you need JDBC 4.l features that shouldn't matter. Both c3p0 and BoneCP are
OK, I have a slight preference for BoneCP, but that is because I have used
it more often than c3p0. Also if you use a JavaEE application server, the
connection pool is included in the AS.
Mark