Java数据库连接池（BoneCP vs DBPool vs c3p0） [英] Java Database connection pool (BoneCP vs DBPool vs c3p0)

问题描述

对于J2EE容器的外部 Java应用程序，哪个连接池库是最好的？

For a Java app outside of a J2EE container, which connection pool library is the best?

因此，我留下了 BoneCP 和 DBPool 。从我可以告诉两个有限的活动。我可以看到的主要区别是性能，BoneCP似乎赢得了。但是文档很弱。

Therefore I'm left with BoneCP and DBPool. From what I can tell both have limited activity. The main difference I can see is performance, which BoneCP seems to win out with. However the documentation is pretty weak.

你在现实世界中使用了哪个数据库池库，为什么？什么是好的和坏的？

Which database pool library have you used in the real world and why? What was the good and bad?

推荐答案

在工作中，我们使用BoneCP（作为c3p0的替代），据我所知，没有任何问题（我没有做升级自己）。从我所看到的和阅读它看起来像一个设计良好的实体库，我个人使用它的替代品：它似乎是那些只是工作的图书馆之一是很好的周围。

At work we have used BoneCP (as the replacement for c3p0) and as far as I know haven't had any issues (I did not do the upgrade myself). From what I have seen and read it seems like a well-designed solid library, and I would personally use it over alternatives: it appears to be one of those "just works" libraries that are nice to have around.

没有什么负面的说DBPool，我只是不够熟悉它;虽然看着它的网站文档肯定看起来像一个加号。

Nothing negative to say about DBPool, I am just not familiar enough with it; although looking at its site documentation certainly seems like a plus.

这篇关于Java数据库连接池（BoneCP vs DBPool vs c3p0）的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！