On 6 May 2011 18:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/05/2011 17:55, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> There are lots of things to consider in making DBCP manageable in
>> the sense described above. I am starting this discussion now
>> because I want to make sure that we build whatever we need to build
>> into poo
On 06/05/2011 17:55, Phil Steitz wrote:
> There are lots of things to consider in making DBCP manageable in
> the sense described above. I am starting this discussion now
> because I want to make sure that we build whatever we need to build
> into pool 2 to make these features possible in DBCP 2.
Despite lots of user requests over the years, DBCP has always backed
off the challenge of providing really robust connection pooling -
i.e., seamlessly handling server or network failures. The reason
for this is that from the vantage point of DBCP, doing more than
just validating connections and d
