Re: Connection pool maintenance thread never ending?

    Hi David,

> The thread never ends ... even if the connection pool is closed.  If the
> connection pool is closed, then any associated maintenance threads
> should be shutdown.  IMHO, of course.

    I agree with that.  And, as it is, it wouldn't be cleaned up until the
garbage collector ran.  To add to things, I'm pretty sure I saw some time
back that threads may not get garbage collected because ThreadGroup or some
thread manager maintains a reference.  I'm not sure if that's been corrected
or not - or on what version. .

> I've logged a bug in sourceforge for this ... and submitted my patch to
> cleanup the thread when it's supposed to be shutdown.

    All things considered, makes sense to me.


                                                         Joe Sam

Joe Sam Shirah -        http://www.conceptgo.com
conceptGO       -        Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
Java Filter Forum:       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/
Just the JDBC FAQs: http://www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
Going International?    http://www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
Que Java400?            http://www.jguru.com/faq/Java400


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Gibbs" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400"
<java400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Connection pool maintenance thread never ending?


> Joe Sam Shirah wrote:
> > First, there is normally no reason to run multiple connection pools
> > for the same driver with properly written programs ( using JNDI to
> > access the pooled connections. )
>
> Well, I need to connection pools for two different types of connections
> ... JDBC and AS400.
>
> > Also, connection pools are seldom manually shut down. Instead they
> > are started up and ended by the container at start up and shut
> > down time.
>
> True ... but my application needs to be able to quiesce the server in
> order to release object locks so that backups can be performed.
>
> > You never know for sure what people were thinking when they wrote
> > something, but I assume they just chose to keep the thread in memory
> > waiting ( doing nothing ) as opposed to ending and starting a new one
> > later.  The basis was most likely how connection pools are expected
> > to be used, and that connection clean up would probably only be
> > stopped briefly. I could see either way as reasonable.
>
> The thread never ends ... even if the connection pool is closed.  If the
> connection pool is closed, then any associated maintenance threads
> should be shutdown.  IMHO, of course.
>
> I've logged a bug in sourceforge for this ... and submitted my patch to
> cleanup the thread when it's supposed to be shutdown.
>
> david
> --