Yes, Andrew -- that is a fine approach to using a connection pool. Go for it.
-Justin On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Andrew Berman <rexx...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the replies guys! > > I just want to make sure I'm totally clear on this. Bob's solution > would work well with my design. So basically, this would be the > workflow? > > 1. check out connection from the pool > 2. set client id on connection (which would have some static and some > random component) > 3. perform multiple operations (gets, puts, etc.) which would be seen > as a single "transaction" > 4. check in the connection to the pool > > This way once the connection is checked out from the pool, if another > user comes along he cannot get that same connection until it has been > checked back in, which would meet Justin's requirements. However, > each time it's checked out, a new client id is created. > > Does this sound reasonable and in line with proper client id usage? > > Thanks again! > > Andrew > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Justin Sheehy <jus...@basho.com> wrote: >> The simplest guidance on client IDs that I can give: >> >> If two mutation (PUT) operations could occur concurrently or without >> awareness of each other, then they should have different client IDs. >> >> As a result of the above: if you are sharing a connection, then you >> should use a different client ID for each separate user of that >> connection. >> >> -Justin >> > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
