That said, I do not see any real benefit to build a different solution than
the current one until we update to Hibernate4. In H4, it will be easy to
use the multi-tenant implementation, even with the old model. It will
provide some benefit for mapping, but will probably not improve the pool
issue discussed here.
/Andreas
> -Vincent
>
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Andreas Jonsson <aj(a)member.fsf.org>
wrote:
>> 2012-09-25 10:48, Denis Gervalle skrev:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Andreas Jonsson <aj(a)member.fsf.org>
wrote:
>>>> 2012-09-24 17:26, Vincent Massol
skrev:
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was trying to make XEM work with HSQLDB and... I have succeeded :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The only problem I have is that DBCP doesn't seem to work with
>>>> Hibernate. For some weird reasons when we do a SET SCHEMA it makes
calls to
>>>> fail afterwards. In any case if I
configure Hibernate to not use
DBCP all
>>>> work just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Funny coincidence! I was just trying to get it to work with
>>>> PostgreSQL. It mostly works, as already commented on the Jira issue.
>>>> The only thing that seems to work unreliably is the initial template
>>>> creation. It seems likely that it is the same issue.
>>>>
>>>> But having looked into this I'm a bit worried about the current XEM
>>>> implementation.
>>> You should, we really do scary stuff to support multiple DB, and also
>>> dynamic mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not an expert on Hibernate, but to me it seems that
>>>> entities are expected to be bound to specific tables at
initialization
>>>> time. So I'm wondering, does
Hibernate really support changing the
>>>> mappings by switching databases or schemas underneath?
>>> The tricks is that we do not really support multiple hibernate
mapping. All
>>> accessed DBs use the same mapping.
These are serious limitations in
>>> multi-wiki mode for mapping related features.
>>>
>>> Hibernate does not even knows that we switch the DB under its feet.
Even
>>> the pool provider is not aware. This
is why we need to set the
correct DB
>>> each time we open a
session/transaction (always tight together), which
>>> means getting a connection from the pool. We do not support nested
>>> session/transaction, in particular to different DBs for the same
reason.
>> Thank's for your reply. Maybe
I've got a correct impression of the
>> current state of affairs.
>>
>> I guess this issue will be addressed in the new model implementation,
>> but I was thinking of this solution, which seems to be possible with a
>> reasonably small effort and with full backwards compliancy:
>>
>> Re-register the entity mappings for each wiki, adding a wiki-specific
>> prefix to each entity name. Then let a custom EntityNameResolver add
>> the prefix by taking the current database from the execution context.
>>
>> For instance, templates could be prepared for entity mappings like so:
>>
>> <class
name="${entityNamePrefix}:com.xpn.xwiki.doc.XWikiDocument"
>> table="xwikidoc"
schema="${entitySchemaAttribute}">
>>
>> And then the SessionFactory is rebuilt whenever a wiki is created or
>> deleted. I'm a bit confused on how and when custom mappings are
>> "injected", and there might be other things that I've missed.
>>
>> But on the other hand, aren't there any frameworks that can do this?
>> What about Hibernate Shards?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> /Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>>> What prevents it
>>>> from generating prepared queries for accessing the entities, which
will
>>>> be resolved against the initial
database/schema, and continue to use
>>>> these even after the database or schema changes?
>>>>
>>> Our config prevent using prepared statements on the DB server.
>>>
>>>
>>>> +1 for your action plan.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> /Andreas
>>>>
>>>>> I've googled around and found that there are lots of people
complaining
>>>> about DBCP.
>>>>> I've googled for what connection pooling library to use and
I've
found
>>>> that most people are recommending
BoneCP (
http://jolbox.com/).
>>>>> See:
>>>>> *
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5640146/java-jdbc-connection-pool-librar…
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8057110/java-database-connection-pool-bo…
>>>>> The other thing is that we
currently have some 300 line of code
that we
>>>> shouldn't have at all and
that we need in XWiki just for handling
DBCP (see
>>>>
com.xpn.xwiki.store.DBCPConnectionProvider).
>>>>> The pro of BoneCP is that it seems to be the fastest, see
>>>>
http://jolbox.com/benchmarks.html
>>>>> So here's what I'd like to propose:
>>>>>
>>>>> * We move DBCPConnectionProvider to a legacy module
>>>>> * We bundle the bonecp jar by default
>>>>> * We configure our hibernate.cfg.xml by default to use boneCP:
>>>>>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.idleMaxAge">240</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.idleConnectionTestPeriod">60</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.partitionCount">3</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.acquireIncrement">10</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.maxConnectionsPerPartition">60</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.minConnectionsPerPartition">20</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.statementsCacheSize">50</property>
>>>>> <property
name="bonecp.releaseHelperThreads">3</property>
>>>>>
>>>>> <property
name="connection.provider_class">com.jolbox.bonecp.provider.BoneCPConnectionProvider</property>
>>>>> What this means:
>>>>> * Existing users of XWiki will not have to change anything, it'll
still
>>>> work
>>>>> * New users will use bonecp without knowing
>>>>> * Existing users can migrate to bonecp just by changing one line in
>>>> their hibernate.cfg.xml file
>>>>> I'd love to do this for 4.3 but we're already quite advanced
in the
4.x
>>>> cycle. That said it's just a
one line change in hibernate.cfg.xml in
case
>>>> of problem to go back to DBCP so
we could do this for 4.3 which
leaves us
>>>> 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 to test this
out. And if later on we find an issue
we'll
>>>> always be able to release a 4.5.1
that has this one line change to
go back
>>>> to DBCP.
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my +1 for this action plan.
>>> Unless BoneCP really provide proven improvements, and not only a
potential
>>> performance increase, that will
probably not be tremendous, I am not
really
>>> in favor of changing a well-know
Apache project for a project that as
not
>>> really a great team of supporter.
From the project info page, I see
only
>>> one name. From the forum, there seems
to be serious rumors that the
project
>>
is no more supported by that guy since more than a year.
>>
>> So, currently, I am -1.
>>
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devs mailing list
>>>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devs mailing list
>>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs