Is it safe to cache DataSource lookups in Java EE?

I'm developing a simple Java EE 5 "routing" application. Different messages from a MQ 开发者_StackOverflow社区queue are first transformed and then, according to the value of a certain field, stored in different datasources (stored procedures in different ds need to be called).

For example valueX -> dataSource1, valueY -> dataSource2. All datasources are setup in the application server with different jndi entries. Since the routing info usually won't change while the app is running, is it save to cache the datasource lookups? For example I would implement a singleton, which holds a hashmap where I store valueX->DataSource1. When a certain entry is not in the list, I would do the resource lookup and store the result in the map. Do I gain any performance with the cache or are these resource lookups fast enough?

In general, what's the best way to build this kind of cache? I could use a cache for some other db lookups too. For example the mapping valueX -> resource name is defined in a simple table in a DB. Is it better too lookup the values on demand and save the result in a map, do a lookup all the time or even read and save all entries on startup? Do I need to synchronize the access? Can I just create a "enum" singleton implementation?

It is safe from operational/change management point of view, but not safe from programmer's one.

From programmer's PoV, DataSource configuration can be changed at runtime, and therefore one should always repeat the lookup.

But this is not how things are happening in real life.

When a change to a Datasource is to be implemented, this is done via a Change Management procedure. There is a c/r record, and that record states that the application will have a downtime. In other words, operational folks executing the c/r will bring the application down, do the change and bring it back up. Nobody does the changes like this on a live AS -- for safety reasons. As the result, you shouldn't take into account a possibility that DS changes at runtime.

So any permanent synchronized shared cache is good in the case.

Will you get a performance boost? This depends on the AS implementation. It likely to have a cache of its own, but that cache may be more generic and so slower and in fact you cannot count on its presence at all.

Do you need to build a cache? The answer usually comes from performance tests. If there is no problem, why waste time and introduce risks?

Resume: yes, build a simple cache and use it -- if it is justified by the performance increase.

Specifics of implementation depend on your preferences. I usually have a cache that does lookups on demand, and has a synchronized map of jndi->object inside. For high-concurrency cache I'd use Read/Write locks instead of naive synchronized -- i.e. many reads can go in parallel, while adding a new entry gets an exclusive access. But those are details much depending on the application details.