Since I'm using Postgresql and can't use LINQ to SQL, I wrote my own wrapper classes.
This is a part of the Student class:
public class Student : User
{
private static NpgsqlConnection connection = null;
private const string TABLE_NAME = "students";
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
/// <summary>
/// Reads data from the data reader and moves it to the Student class.
/// </summary>
private static void ReadFields(Student student, NpgsqlDataReader dr)
{
student.Id = Int32.Parse(dr["id"].ToString());
student.FirstName = dr["first_name"].ToString();
student.LastName = dr["last_name"].ToString();
student.Password = dr["password"].ToString();
}
/// <summary>
/// Updates the student
/// </summary>
public void Update()
{
Connect();
Run(String.Format("UPDATE " + TABLE_NAME + " SET first_name='{0}', last_name='{1}', password='{2}' WHERE id={3}", FirstName, LastName, Password, Id));
connection.Dispose();
}
/// <summary>
/// Inserts a new student
/// </summary>
public void Insert()
{
Connect();
Run(String.Format("INSERT INTO " + TABLE_NAME + " (first_name, last_name, password) VALUES ('{0}', '{1}', '{2}')",FirstName, LastName, Password));
connection.Dispose();
}
private static void Run(string queryString)
{
NpgsqlCommand cmd = new NpgsqlCommand(queryString, connection);
cmd.ExecuteScalar();
cmd.Dispose();
}
private static void Connect()
{
connection = new NpgsqlConnection(String.Format("Server=localhost;Database=db;Uid=uid;Password=pass;pooling=false"));
connection.Open();
}
//....
So as you see with every INSERT, DELETE, UPDATE request I'm using Connect() method which connects to the database. I didn't realize how stupid it was before I had to wait for 10 minutes to have 500 rows inserted, as there were 500 connections to the database.
So I decided to move Connection property to a static DB class.
public static class DB
{
private static NpgsqlConnection connection = null;
public static NpgsqlConnection Connection
{
get
{
if (connection == null)
{
connection = new NpgsqlConnection(String.Format("Server=localhost;Database=db;Uid=uid;Password=pass;pooling=false"));
connection.Open();
}
return connection;
}
}
public static void Run(string queryString)
{
NpgsqlCommand cmd = new NpgsqlCommand(queryString, connection);
cmd.ExecuteScalar();
cmd.Dispose();
}
}
It works now! I replaces all Run methods in the Student class with DB.Run
But I want to know if it will work fine with a lot of people online, not me only. I'm not sure how static things work with ASP.NET, maybe it'll eat a lot of memory?..
It is better not to store the connection in a static field. Create the connection object on demand and let the connection pooling manage your connections.
You can enable connection pooling for PostgreSQL and let the pooler manage connections for you. Then you can use either piece of code without worry. Even when you issue multiple open/close commands the pooler will optimize them.
This provides you more flexibility and less worry about a custom management solution, also less code and edge cases. It will depend on the database provider you're using. Something in the connection string like:
Pooling: True or False. Controls
whether connection pooling is used.
Default = True
If you need a database provider that uses connection pooling for Postgres one option is npgsql: Npgsql is a .Net data provider for Postgresql.
It supports connection pooling as described in the docs.
Static classes are singletons. The danger here is what they reference. Because they always stay alive, everything they keep a reference to will not be garbage collected.
To see if this is the case, profile your web servers memory. If it always grows and never shrinks, you may be constantly adding references in a static class which never get collected.
In all honesty though, I'd create it only as needed, and completely avoid all of this.
EDIT:
I mean don't worry about sharing one single connection object across your data access layer. If the provider you're using supports connection pooling, then it will handle the actual connections made to the database. Just use and dispose of your connection objects as needed at any point in your data access layer.
using (var connection = new NpgsqlConnection("your connection string"))
{
//your data access stuff.
}
I know code like this is rather big, bulky, and repetitive, but that's ADO.NET. As long as you isolate these calls in their own classes by creating a data access library/layer, it's very manageable. Hiding the ADO.NET objects in a static class is dangerous, because you'll inevitably forget to close a connection or call Dispose() somewhere. Plus you run the risk of building a large object graph that will never get garbage collected.
public class Dataconnect
{
public static string connstring = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["SQLConnection"].ToString();
SqlConnection objcon = new SqlConnection(connstring);
SqlCommand objcmd = new SqlCommand();
public bool Opencon()
{
try {
if (objcon.State == ConnectionState.Closed)
{
objcon.Open();
}
objcmd.Connection = objcon;
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex) { throw new Exception("Error: In Open connesction"); return false; }
}
public bool Closecon()
{
try
{
if (objcon.State == ConnectionState.Open)
{
objcon.Close();
}
objcmd.Dispose();
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex) { throw new Exception("Error: In Close connesction"); return false; }
}
public static int ExecuteQuery(SqlCommand sqlcmd)
{
try
{
Dataconnect objdc = new Dataconnect();
int affectedrecord = 0;
if (objdc.Opencon() == true)
{
sqlcmd.Connection = objdc.objcon;
affectedrecord = sqlcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
objdc.Closecon();
objdc = null;
return affectedrecord;
}
else { return affectedrecord; }
}
catch (Exception ex) { throw ex;/* new Exception("Error: In ExecuteNonquery");*/ }
}
public static DataTable Generatedatatable(SqlCommand sqlcmd)
{
try { Dataconnect objdc = new Dataconnect();
if (objdc.Opencon() == true)
{
sqlcmd.Connection = objdc.objcon;
SqlDataReader dr;
DataTable objdt = new DataTable();
dr = sqlcmd.ExecuteReader();
objdt.Load(dr);
objdc.Closecon();
objdc = null;
return objdt;
}
else { return null; }
}
catch (Exception Exception) { throw Exception /*new Exception("Error: In Generatedatatable")*/; }
}
Related
My user send dynamic entity from client-project so, I have to write methods like this
public Task<TUser> FindByNameAsync(string normalizedUserName, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
throw new NotImplementedException();
//string sql = "SELECT * FROM \"IdentityUsers\" WHERE \"NormalizedUserName\" = #NormalizedUserName;";
//using (var connection = _databaseConnectionFactory.CreateConnectionAsync())
//{
// connection.QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync<TUser>(sql,
// new { NormalizedUserName = normalizedUserName });
//}
}
My IDatabaseConnectionFactory class bind ConnectionString like below:
public interface IDatabaseConnectionFactory
{
Task<IDbConnection> CreateConnectionAsync();
}
public class ConnectionFactory : IDatabaseConnectionFactory
{
private readonly string _connectionString;
public ConnectionFactory(string connectionString) => _connectionString = connectionString ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(connectionString));
public async Task<IDbConnection> CreateConnectionAsync()
{
try
{
var connString = new NpgsqlConnection(_connectionString);
await connString.OpenAsync();
return connString;
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
}
Now, how can I execute following query using generic-type entity TUser
string sql = "SELECT * FROM \"IdentityUsers\" WHERE \"NormalizedUserName\" = #NormalizedUserName;";
using (var connection = _databaseConnectionFactory.CreateConnectionAsync())
{
connection.QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync<TUser>(sql,
new { NormalizedUserName = normalizedUserName });
}
Note: QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync not found under connection here
You aren't awaiting the CreateConnectionAsync. Unfortunately it isn't obvious in this case, because Task<T> is disposable (so the using doesn't complain); try instead:
using (var connection = await _databaseConnectionFactory.CreateConnectionAsync())
{
var user = await connection.QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync<TUser>(sql,
new { NormalizedUserName = normalizedUserName });
}
As a tip: the compiler output (against the original code) helps make this clear:
Error CS1929 'Task<IDbConnection>' does not contain a definition for 'QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync' and the best extension method overload 'SqlMapper.QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync<TUser>(IDbConnection, string, object, IDbTransaction, int?, CommandType?)' requires a receiver of type 'IDbConnection'
which tells us that:
it found some QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync method, but it wasn't usable, because
the target expression is a Task<IDbConnection>, not an IDbConnection
As a side note: it is worth knowing that if you're only doing one operation with the connection, Dapper can deal with opening and closing the connection for you - which can help reduce the number of async/await operations. Consider, for example, if you had a CreateClosedConnection() method that did not open the connection, and thus had no need to be async; the following would still work:
using (var connection = _databaseConnectionFactory.CreateClosedConnection())
{
var user = await connection.QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync<TUser>(sql,
new { NormalizedUserName = normalizedUserName });
}
with Dapper dealing with the await OpenAsync() for you as part of the QueryFirstOrDefaultAsync.
We have a Utility Class that opens and disconnects the Derby DB Connection
The database is stored in a folder on C drive of a Windows 7 computer
The application is being written with JavaFX 8
We are NOT using transactions
Before using the Utility Class we would Open and Disconnect the connection with each CRUD function rs.close() con.close()
Our question has two parts
1. Do we really need to open and close the connection with each CRUD function?
2. Why is the Utility Class not closing the rs and stmnt?
The conn.close() fires when
We will post the code for the Utility Class and the Delete function
We are also using the code below in the Main Class to shutdown the Derby DB when the application is closed
private void handle(WindowEvent e) throws SQLException {
//Proper CLOSE of connection to DB keeps proper incrementing by 1 as set when the table is created
JDBCUtil.closeConnection(conn);
String conURL = "jdbc:derby:;shutdown=true";
try{
DriverManager.getConnection(conURL);
}catch (SQLException se){
if(!(se.getErrorCode() == 50000) && (se.getSQLState().equals("XJ015")))
System.err.println(se);
}
System.exit(0);
Platform.exit();
}
Utility Class
public class JDBCUtil {
public static Connection conn;
public static Connection getConnection() throws SQLException {
// The URL is specific to the JDBC driver and the database you want to connect
String dbName="InfoDB";
String dbURL = "jdbc:derby:C:/A_DerbyDataBase/DBName/" + dbName + ";create=true";
//String dbURL = "jdbc:derby:DATABASE_NAME;create=true";
// Set the user id and password
//String userId = "app";
//String password = "app";
// Get a connection
conn = DriverManager.getConnection(dbURL);
// Set the auto-commit to false ONLY if you use Transactions
/*conn.setAutoCommit(true);*/
System.out.println("111111111111111111111111111 Get Connection ");
return conn;
}
public static void closeConnection(Connection conn) throws SQLException {
if (conn != null) {
System.out.println("222222222222222222222 conn.close ");
conn.close();
}
}
public static void closeStatement(Statement stmnt) throws SQLException{
if (stmnt != null) {
System.out.println("3333333333333333333333 stmnt.close ");
stmnt.close();
}
}
public static void closeResultSet(ResultSet rs) throws SQLException {
if (rs != null) {
System.out.println("44444444444444444444444 rs.close ");
rs.close();
}
}
/*public static void commit(Connection conn) throws SQLException {
if (conn != null) {
conn.commit();
}
}
public static void rollback(Connection conn) throws SQLException {
if (conn != null) {
conn.rollback();
}
}*/
public static void main(String[] args) throws SQLException {
//conn = JDBCUtil.getConnection();
JDBCUtil.closeConnection(conn);
}
And the Delete Function
#FXML
private void onDelete(ActionEvent e) throws SQLException, IOException{
conn = JDBCUtil.getConnection();
String sql = "DELETE FROM infodata WHERE ID = ?";
pstmt = conn.prepareStatement(sql);
int ID = Integer.valueOf(txfID.getText());
pstmt.setInt(1, ID);
pstmt.executeUpdate();
pstmt.close();
JDBCUtil.closeConnection(conn);
ReadFromDB();
btnEdit.setVisible(false);
btnDelete.setVisible(false);
btnCancel.setVisible(false);
btnAdd.setVisible(true);
txfInfo.setText("Record Deleted");
}
Database Access with a Connection Pool
Rather than writing your own connection logic, I advise using a connection pool, for example see the Baeldung Hikari Tutorial. You can use it like this:
Initialize the connection pool in your application's init method.
When you want to use a connection, use the Java try-with-resources construct, which will auto-close the connection (returning it to the connection pool) when you are done with it.
In your application's stop method, close the connection pool.
Sample wrapper class for DataSource connections (copied from Baeldung Hikari link above):
public class DataSource {
private static HikariConfig config = new HikariConfig();
private static HikariDataSource ds;
static {
config.setJdbcUrl( "jdbc_url" );
config.setUsername( "database_username" );
config.setPassword( "database_password" );
config.addDataSourceProperty( "cachePrepStmts" , "true" );
config.addDataSourceProperty( "prepStmtCacheSize" , "250" );
config.addDataSourceProperty( "prepStmtCacheSqlLimit" , "2048" );
ds = new HikariDataSource( config );
}
private DataSource() {}
public static Connection getConnection() throws SQLException {
return ds.getConnection();
}
}
Sample database call using the Hikari connection pool with autoclose of connections using Java's try with resources construct (copied from Baeldung Hikari link above):
public static List<Employee> fetchData() throws SQLException {
String SQL_QUERY = "select * from emp";
List<Employee> employees = null;
try (Connection con = DataSource.getConnection();
PreparedStatement pst = con.prepareStatement( SQL_QUERY );
ResultSet rs = pst.executeQuery();) {
employees = new ArrayList<>();
Employee employee;
while ( rs.next() ) {
employee = new Employee();
employee.setEmpNo( rs.getInt( "empno" ) );
employee.setEname( rs.getString( "ename" ) );
employee.setJob( rs.getString( "job" ) );
employee.setMgr( rs.getInt( "mgr" ) );
employee.setHiredate( rs.getDate( "hiredate" ) );
employee.setSal( rs.getInt( "sal" ) );
employee.setComm( rs.getInt( "comm" ) );
employee.setDeptno( rs.getInt( "deptno" ) );
employees.add( employee );
}
}
return employees;
}
For more info read the Baeldung tutorial and the Hikari site documentation:
Link to HikariCP project.
Database Access without a Connection Pool
Now, you don't need to use a connection pool to do this, you can open and close a connection for each database call, however I would recommend using a connection pool for performance reasons and so that you don't end up trying to re-invent the wheel and ending up with something square rather than round.
I didn't try debugging or examining the connection utility class you have in your question, but, if you are going to replace it with a connection pool anyway, there is no reason to do that.
Sample code for accessing a database from JavaFX without a connection pool:
JavaFX MySQL connection example please
Non-Task based database access.
JavaFX - Background Thread for SQL Query which uses a Task based sample for db access.
Some of the sample code is written to be minimal to demonstrate particular purposes, such as access to a database and feedback of data from a given table to a UI, and not as a general purpose database utility. For a robust implementation for an application that uses many database queries, a connection pool or a dedicated database connection manager class (such as you have in your question), is preferred.
I'm relatively new to mobile and async data access and I'm trying to build a line-of-business app from Xamarin starter "cross platform" template in VS2017. It seems that when I do database operations too frequently I get 'database is locked' (most questions deal with roll-your-own sqlite implementations). I had added pretty verbose logging (I have to support non-technical end mobile users).
I changed to (as suggested in other answers) a singleton model for database access which is producing non-traceable (meaning no exceptions are caught and no xamarin log entries) exceptions when calling table.ReadAsync (see below).
As a secondary question, having spent so much time on this and running into so many different roadblocks (no doubt of my own making) I'm wondering whether I'm not following some unspoken rule for mobile development such as "only one async object read per page and design UI for 100% async". Am I trying to do too much? Here is my current "singleton" data access class:
public static class MainDataStore
{
private static ReaderWriterLockSlim ReadLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
public static bool IsInitialized { get; set; }
public static MobileServiceClient MobileService { get; set; }
public static bool UseAuthentication = true;
public static IMobileServiceSyncTable<User> UserTable;
public static IMobileServiceSyncTable<Showroom> ShowroomTable;
public static IEnumerable<User> Users { get; set; } //= new ObservableRangeCollection<User>();
public static IEnumerable<Showroom> Showrooms { get; set; }
public static void InitializeAsync()
{
try
{
if (IsInitialized)
return;
Logging.D("Starting to initialize main store.");
AuthenticationHandler handler = null;
handler = new AuthenticationHandler();
MobileService = new MobileServiceClient(App.AzureMobileAppUrl, handler)
{
SerializerSettings = new MobileServiceJsonSerializerSettings
{
CamelCasePropertyNames = true
}
};
var store = new MobileServiceSQLiteStore(Settings.DatabaseName);
store.DefineTable<User>();
store.DefineTable<Showroom>();
MobileService.SyncContext.InitializeAsync(store, new MobileServiceSyncHandler());
UserTable = MobileService.GetSyncTable<User>();
ShowroomTable = MobileService.GetSyncTable<Showroom>();
Logging.D("Finished initializing main store.");
IsInitialized = true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Logging.E(ex); // Debug.WriteLine("EXCEPTION: " + ex.Message + ". Stack: " + ex.StackTrace);
}
}
public static async void Load(ECarnavalObjectType type)
{
Logging.D("Reading lock entering. Read count: " + ReadLock.CurrentReadCount.ToString());
// ReadLock.EnterReadLock();
switch (type)
{
case ECarnavalObjectType.Users:
await GetUsersAsync();
Users = await UserTable.ToEnumerableAsync();
break;
case ECarnavalObjectType.Showrooms:
await GetShowroomsAsync();
Showrooms = await ShowroomTable.ToEnumerableAsync();
break;
}
// ReadLock.ExitReadLock();
}
public static async Task GetUsersAsync()
{
if (CrossConnectivity.Current.IsConnected)
{
try
{
// await UserTable.ReadAsync<User>(UserTable.CreateQuery());
await UserTable.PullAsync($"all{typeof(User).Name}", UserTable.CreateQuery());
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
public static async Task GetShowroomsAsync()
{
await ShowroomTable.ReadAsync<Showroom>(ShowroomTable.CreateQuery());
}
}
In your code, you are not awaiting the InitializeAsync(), which means it is likely that the database is still locked and being set up when you go to synchronize it.
Arrange your code in a singleton, then have every single method (read/list/etc.) call await InitializeAsync() to initialize the database. Do an early return on the InitializeAsync() method if the database is already created (you've got some good code there for that).
For more info, see my book: https://adrianhall.github.io/develop-mobile-apps-with-csharp-and-azure/chapter3/client/
I have a specific scenario here where I need to pass the connection string based on the user, because users may be mapped to the different databases based on his/her enterprise.
This is the code I use to resolve the dependency with a static variable:
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.Register(
Component.For<IUserRepository>()
.ImplementedBy(typeof(IKS.Dare.Optimix.Repository.EntityFramework.UserModule.UserRepository))
.DependsOn(Dependency.OnValue("connectionString", DatabaseSettings.DefaultConnectionString))
);
}
Because this DefaultConnectionString is supposed to be a dynamic one, I don't want to lock this variable to make it thread safe, as this would degrade the performance. I would want a way so that I can deal with such situation.
Possible consideration which can be that we can give a session, which can be applied as follows:
DynamicParameters((k, d) => d["connectionString"] = Session["connectionString"])
But this is in a different project which doesn't utilize any web component, it's just an installer project which is basically designed for resolving the dependencies only.
My Generic repository looks like following
public class GenericRepository<T> : IGenericRepository<T> where T : BaseEntity
{
private const string IsActive = "IsActive", DbContext = "dbContext", EntityPropertyName = "Entity";
private string connectionString = String.Empty, provider = String.Empty;
public GenericRepository(string connectionString, string provider)
{
this.connectionString = connectionString;
this.provider = provider;
}
public int Count()
{
string tableName = typeof(T).Name;
string query = SqlQueryConstants.SelectCount + SqlQueryConstants.Space + tableName;
int count = DbHelper.ExecuteScalar<int>(query: query, commandType: System.Data.CommandType.Text, connectionString: connectionString, provider: provider, parameters: null);
return count;
}
}
DBHelper class looks like follows
public static int ExecuteNonQuery(string query, CommandType commandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure,
IList<DbParameter> parameters = null, int? timeout = null, string connectionString = "", string provider = "")
{
using (var connection = CreateDbConnection(connectionString, provider))
{
connection.Open();
using (DbCommand command = CreateDbCommand(sqlQuery: query, parameters: parameters,
connection: connection, commandType: commandType, timeout: timeout))
{
return command.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
}
public static DbParameter CreateParameter<TValue>(string name, TValue value, DbType dbType,
ParameterDirection parameterDirection = ParameterDirection.Input, string provider = "")
{
DbParameter param = CreateDbProviderFactory(provider).CreateParameter();
param.Value = value;
param.ParameterName = name;
param.DbType = dbType;
param.Direction = parameterDirection;
return param;
}
public static DbConnection CreateDbConnection()
{
return CreateDbConnection(String.Empty, String.Empty);
}
public static DbConnection CreateDbConnection(string connectionString = "", string provider = "")
{
DbConnection connection = null;
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(provider))
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(DatabaseSettings.DefaultProvider))
throw new ArgumentNullException("provider");
else
provider = DatabaseSettings.DefaultProvider;
}
connection = CreateDbProviderFactory(provider).CreateConnection();
connection.ConnectionString = connectionString;
return connection;
}
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Note : I couldn't edit steven's answer.
[EDIT] To make it more clear it can be implemented as:
Here controller is inherited from BaseController
public class UserController : BaseController
{
//
// GET: /Index/
private IUserRepository userRepository;
public UserController(IUserRepository userRepository)
: base(userRepository)
{
this.userRepository = userRepository;
}
}
and BaseController is inherited from Controller where in the database settings are being set in the constructor of Base controller so that we don't need to set it everywhere
public abstract class BaseController : Controller
{
public BaseController(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
userRepository.connectionStringProvider.Provider = WebUtilities.CurrentUserData.Provider;
userRepository.connectionStringProvider.ConnectionString = WebUtilities.CurrentUserData.ConnectionString;
}
}
Since, the connection string is runtime data, you should not use it to construct your application components, as is described in this article. So as the article advices, you should hide the connection string behind a provider abstraction. For instance:
public interface IConnectionStringProvider {
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
This way your repositories can depend on IConnectionStringProvider and can call IConnectionStringProvider.ConnectionString at runtime:
public int Count()
{
string tableName = typeof(T).Name;
string query = SqlQueryConstants.SelectCount + SqlQueryConstants.Space + tableName;
return DbHelper.ExecuteScalar<int>(
this.connectionStringProvider.ConnectionString,
provider: provider, parameters: null);
}
It will be trivial to create an IConnectionStringProvider to will get the correct connection string for you:
class DatabaseConnectionStringProvider : IConnectionStringProvider
{
public string ConnectionString => Session["connectionString"];
}
Since this clas depends on application-specifics (the ASP.NET session in this case), the class should not be part of the application's core logic. Instead, this adapter should live in the application's start up path (a.k.a. the composition root, the place where you configure your container).
You might even want to consider not passing along the IConnectionStringProvider into your repositories, but instead create an abstraction that will create a connection itself. This will hide the fact that there is a connection string completely.
What you're looking for is multi tenancy. You can google "castle windsor multi tenancy" and find a number of useful articles.
Here's a similar Stackoverflow question that links to some good articles on Windsor and multi tenancy. In particular, look into Windsor's IHandlerSelector interface.
I have a class that gets tables from Sql Server. the class is static, but the variables are not. I want to know if it is OK in Asp net, because I had read not to use static at database in Asp net.
My Class: (There are more functions in the class, I put here one for example)
public static class DataBase
{
public static bool TableChange(string sqlCreate)
{
using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(Global.ConnectionString))
{
using (var cmd = new SqlCommand(sqlCreate, connection))
{
try
{
connection.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Log.WriteLog(ex.Message + "\n" + sqlCreate, ex, HttpContext.Current.Request);
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
}
Thanks in advance
What you have read is most probably something to do with this approach:
public static EntityContext Database = new EntityContext();
// or
public static SqlConnection Database = new SqlConnection("...");
Here you store the database connection in a static variable and thus all parallel requests would want to use the same connection which is a very bad approach if it even works at all (it will probably work sort of fine until the page is under load).
You do not have this problem, because in your case only the methods are static, not the variables. Your code follows the recommended path - open connection (retrieve it from the pool), execute query, close the connection (return it to the pool).