We will provide the patch for Tomcat 7, is that ok or should it be on master for Tomcat 8?
We won't be updating to Tomcat 7 for a month, so we won't provide the patch until we have fully tested it. We updated LocalString.properties for our new messages but did not update the other languages since we are not fluent in those. Is that OK? What should we do about the documentation for JDBCStore? Should we say that it is deprecated and to use DataSourceStore instead? Or leave it and update the documentation to talk about both? If you are interested you can look at the preliminary changes here. https://github.com/kdombeck/tomcat70/tree/datasource-session-store ________________________________ From: Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Thread starvation with JDBCStore 2012/11/7 ken dombeck <ken_domb...@yahoo.com>: > #1 I can definetly create a new store (JDBCRealm, DataSourceRealm), I am just > not sure of Apache wanting to support multiple implementations. > It is not a big deal. If the new implementation is better we can deprecate the old one and remove it from future versions. I just do not see how all issues can be solved just by patching JDBCStore. For such components the "support" is mostly a supervision. The bug reports and patches are usually provided by those who are actually using the component. > #3 Sorry, I should have mentioned that we tested all 3 options and option 1 > and 3 solved our issue. Option 2 helped a bit but was not completely fair to > all threads and therefore still allowed the background process to "hold" the > lock longer than expected. > OK, feel free to submit a patch. > #4 Increasing the expire frequency is our current short term "hack". This is > a hack because it does not remove the problem, it just reduces the frequency > of the issue. > > #5 I have found several issues opened for the performance issues of expiring > database sessions. This could be a future enhancement but does not completely > solve this issue. > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34319 > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47281 > BZ 47281 has the same idea that I mentioned, to use a SELECT WHERE. ;) Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
