Hi,
On 12/21/2012 07:34 AM, Sivakumar Thyagarajan wrote:
>> Just saying, that no matter how many attributes we put on these
>> annotations we won't cover all scenarios.
>
> I agree. We can't cover *all* scenarios and I just want the spec to
> cover *most* scenarios. For scenarios that can't be covered by the spec,
> there are existing vendor-specific administrative tools to create those
> resources to cover those corner-case scenarios.
>
Agreed.
> Do you have any other properties, apart from the min-pool-size and
> max-pool-size attributes, that we could standardize to cover more common
> scenarios?
>
Not for this revision.
>> @Security
>> NO_SECURITY -- All Subject / CRI to sent to the same pool
>> SUBJECT -- Pools are split on Subject equality
>> CONNECTION_REQUEST_INFO -- Pools are split on ConnectionRequestInfo
>> equality
>> SUBJECT_AND_CONNECTION_REQUEST_INFO -- Advanced scenario where both
>> parameters are taken into account for splitting
>>
>
> Do you think most connector container implementations support this
> feature? AFAIK, GlassFish doesn't support this. Would you consider this
> setting a fairly advanced 'deployment' configuration, and have this be
> specified through vendor-specific properties?
>
> As an example, GF also supports a list of advanced pooling features (see
> attributes in
> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19798-01/821-1750/giygu/index.html), but they
> may not be of interest to other implementations, and so I avoided them
> in the inital @ConnectorConnectionFactoryDefinition proposal.
>
> My thumb rule that I am trying to use here: We should standardize the
> 'core' widely-implemented set of CF configuration properties, that a
> developer who is going to use a Connector CF would need in 80% of their
> usecase scenarios on any application server?
>
Agreed, and I can see that the core pool setup (how it is split
internally) is hidden for Glassfish or WebLogic -- just looking at the
XSD documentation. You will have to explain to me how to setup a
resource adapter which gets its Subject instances from a security domain ;)
So my suggestion above wouldn't fly.
But we are starting to identify the mandatory key/value pairs for
'properties'.
Best regards,
Jesper