-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 286
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WIP: Feature | Introduce "Pool Idle Timeout" connection property #348
Conversation
get { return _poolIdleTimeout; } | ||
set | ||
{ | ||
if (value < 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This check for <0 will mean that users can't set it to the default value of -1 to return to the default behaviour which seems counter intuitive, both removing and setting to default value should normally yield the same result I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're only accepting values 0 to Int32.Max as documented here.
This customized behaviour is disabled by default (hence -1) so setting to anything other than the range is essentially not allowed.
Same is with Connection Timeout
although it's default is 15 secs. We not really obstructing default value, but anything beyond range. I was also thinking of whether I should also check for Max value here, but didn't see that at other places, but maybe we should check everywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This customized behaviour is disabled by default (hence -1) so setting to anything other than the range is essentially not allowed.
Sure, but if you enable it how do you then disable it without starting again with a new connection string builder? Or is that not a suggested use case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes you're right. I will change it to < -1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is 0 a useful value to allow? I would expect that to instantly dispose of pools which is the same thing as just not using pooling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The behavior is same, yes. Allowing 0 or not, doesn't seem a problem to me.
@David-Engel if you could confirm the range as well, I can update code accordingly.
Closing as this is not mergeable. Feel free to open a new PR for this feature. |
Fixes #343