Switch from Common DBCP to Tomcat new JDBC pool

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction

I did not get into feasability details yet  
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone

Opinions?

Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Jacques,

I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other application servers?

Jacopo

On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>
> I did not get into feasability details yet  
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>
> Opinions?
>
> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
In http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.

But I have to clarify because at http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
Even here http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
And from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
From here it's even less clear http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations 
And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP

I found http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read yet

I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques,
>
> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other application servers?
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>
>> I did not get into feasability details yet  
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

>I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
> In http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>
> But I have to clarify because at http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
> Even here http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
> And from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
> From here it's even less clear http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations 
> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>
> I found http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read yet
>
> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other application servers?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>
>>> I did not get into feasability details yet  
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems.

Jacopo

On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
>> In http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>>
>> But I have to clarify because at http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
>> Even here http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
>> And from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
>> From here it's even less clear http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations 
>> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>>
>> I found http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read yet
>>
>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other application servers?
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>>
>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet  
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>

[Adrian Crum-3]

Would you be willing to upload the patch to Jira? I could take a look  
at it when I have some time.

-Adrian

Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>:

> As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an  
> alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that  
> replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working  
> (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't  
> find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
>>> In  
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone 
>>> they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
>>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>>>
>>> But I have to clarify because at  
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they  
>>> pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which  
>>> version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
>>> Even here  
>>> http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
>>> And from  
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
>>> From here it's even less clear  
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations
>>> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could  
>>> be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>>>
>>> I found  
>>> http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read  
>>> yet
>>>
>>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or  
>>>> make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other  
>>>> application servers?
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is  
>>>>> a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection  
>>>>> pool.>> at
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Jacopo,

Yes, we could even kept Common DBCP (at least in a 1st time) and use it as an alternative as you suggested.
Moqui experience with this architecture seems good

Jacques

From: <[hidden email]>

> Would you be willing to upload the patch to Jira? I could take a look  
> at it when I have some time.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>:
>
>> As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an  
>> alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that  
>> replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working  
>> (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't  
>> find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
>>>> In  
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone 
>>>> they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
>>>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>>>>
>>>> But I have to clarify because at  
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they  
>>>> pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which  
>>>> version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
>>>> Even here  
>>>> http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
>>>> And from  
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
>>>> From here it's even less clear  
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations
>>>> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could  
>>>> be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>>>>
>>>> I found  
>>>> http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read  
>>>> yet
>>>>
>>>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or  
>>>>> make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other  
>>>>> application servers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is  
>>>>>> a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection  
>>>>>> pool.>> at
>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet
>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Here you go Adrian (and all):

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5129

Please feel free to ping me to discuss, it would be really great to see this effort finalized as I initially spent a good amount of time and because it would be a nice enhancement for OFBiz.
In the task I have mentioned what are the parts that are still incomplete.

Jacopo



On Jan 31, 2013, at 11:07 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Would you be willing to upload the patch to Jira? I could take a look at it when I have some time.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>:
>
>> As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
>>>> In http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
>>>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>>>>
>>>> But I have to clarify because at http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
>>>> Even here http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
>>>> And from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
>>>> From here it's even less clear http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations
>>>> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>>>>
>>>> I found http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read yet
>>>>
>>>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other application servers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection pool.>> at
>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet
>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Yes,

my patch doesn't require any changes to existing DBCP code, it simply adds Atomikos as an option that you can enable (in place of DBCP) in entityengine.xml

Jacopo

On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Jacopo,
>
> Yes, we could even kept Common DBCP (at least in a 1st time) and use it as an alternative as you suggested.
> Moqui experience with this architecture seems good
>
> Jacques
>
> From: <[hidden email]>
>> Would you be willing to upload the patch to Jira? I could take a look  
>> at it when I have some time.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> As a side note, we could also consider to use Atomikos as an  
>>> alternative to commons DBCP; I have actually a local patch that  
>>> replaces commons-dbcp+geronimoTx with Atomikos; it is mostly working  
>>> (except for some Tx related details on some special cases I didn't  
>>> find time to fix). This would work well on high load systems.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, It's not as simple as I thought, to be continued later...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> I guess using the standalone version it should not be a problem
>>>>> In  
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone 
>>>>> they that it has only one  dependency on tomcat-juli.jar.
>>>>> It shoud be then simply a replacement for Common DBCP.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I have to clarify because at  
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction they  
>>>>> pretend it's a better implementation but not clearly over which  
>>>>> version of Common DBCP (1.4 is reputed to be quite safe)
>>>>> Even here  
>>>>> http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2012/01/24/using-tomcat-7-jdbc-connection-pool-production
>>>>> And from  
>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4711943/tomcat-dbcp-vs-commons-dbcp
>>>>> From here it's even less clear  
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-datasource-examples-howto.html#Database_Connection_Pool_(DBCP)_Configurations
>>>>> And  logAbandoned, removeAbandoned, removeAbandonedTimeout could  
>>>>> be a important reason to stay with Common DBCP
>>>>>
>>>>> I found  
>>>>> http://vigilbose.blogspot.fr/2009/03/apache-commons-dbcp-and-tomcat-jdbc.html that I have not read  
>>>>> yet
>>>>>
>>>>> I will digg a bit more when I will get a chance...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't study the details but wouldn't this switch prevent (or  
>>>>>> make even more difficult) deployment of OFBiz in other  
>>>>>> application servers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read <<The JDBC Connection Pool org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool is  
>>>>>>> a replacement or an alternative to the commons-dbcp connection  
>>>>>>> pool.>> at
>>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Introduction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not get into feasability details yet
>>>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html#Standalone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>