Hi Steven :) thanks for the explanation, as far as I understand there are a lot of things I can learn from you about JMX so I started feeling impatient to see your commits :P
I don't think we should mark with @Deprecate removed ctors, classes are now living in a fresh new package so, as user, I wouldn't expect retro-compatibility at all. When upgrading a major revision, I expect a completely (or partially, in that case) new version of the library... maybe I'm wrong but my instinct suggests me a 2.0 version could be even a completely rewrite of the 1.5. BTW that's just my opinion :P Have a nice day, Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Steven Siebert <smsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Simone, > > I'm sorry I'm confusing, so many thoughts going though my mind =) > > yes, I think the best approach is to provide a separate class for the > JMX...but I'm thinking that doing a private inner class (non-static) in each > pool would be the cleanest way to do so. This way, the MBean (instance) > would have direct access to both the config values (read/write) as well as > the ability to invoke pool methods (such as getNumwaiters(), POOL-159). > This would significantly cut down on the bootstrapping of having to register > the config and pool with the MBean. > > Once I get home, I'll attach a JMX patch to POOL-172 using your latest > commit. > > I noticed your two JIRA tickets for the concurrency and builder > pattern....should one be submitted to add the @deprecated tag to the 1.5 API > for the various classes, methods, and constructors we're blowing away? > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Simone Tripodi > <simone.trip...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Steven, >> very sorry to have missed the Jira notifications, just checked now >> after read your email. Sorry! :( >> >> I thought the idea was adding JMX support directly on factory/pool and >> not on Configuration, btw not being JMX expert this will be a good >> chance to learn... I'll fill a new Jira issue for adding thread safety >> support on configuration classes, and start to study how to do it in >> the best way. >> >> I like the Builder idea, my +1 for that, take it in consideration as >> already done :P >> >> Have a nice day and thanks for the feedbacks! >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Steven Siebert <smsi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi Simone, >> > >> > You have two +1's waiting for you in the JIRA comments =) >> > >> > My comments from tracker: >> > >> > "I took a look at this last night but didn't get a chance to comment =) >> > >> > I like the patch, I believe this does indeed satisfy the issue. >> > >> > One question I have, since we're eliminating the primitive configuration >> > properties within the pool/factory classes, we're making the Config >> objects >> > publicly accessible, and possibly accessing through JMX is the idea of >> > making the Config objects thread-safe. This would certainly reduce the >> need >> > to have to externally synchronize (and possibly introduce bugs) every >> time. >> > >> > Another issue we probably need to open another ticket for is to deprecate >> > the constructors we've eliminated in 1.5. >> > >> > Last suggestion/question is about making inner (public static final) >> Builder >> > pattern classes within the concrete Config classes (and possibly defining >> an >> > abstract <T extends Abstract*Config> create() method in the Abstract >> class). >> > This would further simplify the programmatic creation of the Config >> classes. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > +1 on Simones patch...we can add any of the above after it has been >> > committed." >> > >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Simone Tripodi < >> simone.trip...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all mates, >> >> I updated the jira issue uploading my patch; it contains the >> >> configuration extraction and some code modification. >> >> IMHO we shouldn't replicate the same data in both configuration AND >> >> factory/pool, when creating the factory/pool it is enough storing the >> >> configuration reference, just use it. >> >> I intentionally missed the interfaces layer, since they can be added >> >> directly in the JMX support in the required form. >> >> Please take a look at the patch and provide feedbacks, if you agree I >> >> could start committing the modifications and proceed on JMX support. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> Simo >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com] >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08 >> >> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> >> >> >> Gary, >> >> >> >> >> >> Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack >> out >> >> some >> >> >> simple UML "diffs", if only to wrap my head around it all. I'll >> upload >> >> the >> >> >> file to the issue once complete. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, I hope I didn't offend with the 'academic' comment, I >> >> >> most certainly did not intend to infer that there weren't functional >> >> >> importances to this issue. I was mostly trying to delineate the two >> >> issues >> >> >> in my mind, and putting it to "paper" was a good way to do that =) >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> >> >> S >> >> > >> >> > Hi Steven, >> >> > >> >> > No offense even considered from this end :) >> >> > >> >> > I'm glad we are going through this exercise. This will improve the >> >> software I am sure. >> >> > >> >> > Gary >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] >> >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29 >> >> >> > > To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > it seems you've been doing a very good work, the only thing I >> >> *suggest* >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > * simplifying the mutable/immutable interfaces, one interface >> for >> >> >> > > > already known common (im)mutable fields should be enough; >> >> >> > > > * adding/renaming the interfaces with the <PoolName>`MBean` >> >> postfix to >> >> >> > > > be ready for JMX support; >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > btw it seems you're now much more deep inside the topic than me >> ;) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > WDYT? >> >> >> > > > Simo >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Sorry I have been a little slow on this. I will have a careful >> look >> >> >> > > this eve. Based on a very quick review, I am +1 on the idea and >> >> >> > > approach to separate mutable / immutable. Also +1 for JMX >> support. >> >> >> > > Two quick things to keep top of mind: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 1. Please make sure not to lose documentation. Whatever is >> >> >> > > documented today in protected field / internal getters / setters >> >> docs >> >> >> > > needs to be carried forward. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Check. I did not check as I refactored that Javadocs were in the >> right >> >> >> > places. That would be a requirement for a real patch. I only meant >> >> this as >> >> >> > an experiment that went a lot further than I thought. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2. Somewhat related - I am fine just plowing ahead for now using >> >> >> > > existing API concepts, but some of those concepts are >> anachronistic >> >> or >> >> >> > > broken, IMO, so we may later decide to revamp much of the >> >> "accounting" >> >> >> > > aspects of the API. That we should and will discuss on other >> >> >> > > threads. One thing that might be good to think about at this >> point, >> >> >> > > however, is getting rid of primitive properties (we started that >> >> with >> >> >> > > whenExhaustedAction). I think there is a DBCP issue on this >> raised >> >> by >> >> >> > > Dain a couple of years ago. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It would be nice to track this someplace, I am not sure if Javadoc >> is >> >> the >> >> >> > right place. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Gary >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks all for moving this along! >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Phil >> >> >> > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> >> > > > http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > > <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > >>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> >> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41 >> >> >> > > >>> To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> Hi Gary! >> >> >> > > >>> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can you give me >> >> please >> >> >> > > >>> the issue ID? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> It's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-173 >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> I've updated the diff file a couple of times since my initial >> >> msg. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Gary >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!!! >> >> >> > > >>> Simo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> >> > > >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> > Hi Simone, >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > Please see my experiment in progress here >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12457710/pool2config.diff >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> > Senior Software Engineer >> >> >> > > >>> > Rocket Software >> >> >> > > >>> > 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA >> >> >> > > >>> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> >> > > >>> > Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > >>> >> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> >> > > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53 >> >> >> > > >>> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> > > >>> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> Hi, >> >> >> > > >>> >> sorry for not having been clear, but in my previous email >> my >> >> >> > intent >> >> >> > > >>> >> was saying that depending on how we manage the Config >> class, >> >> it >> >> >> > could >> >> >> > > >>> >> influence de JMX support design, nothing more, and since >> I'm >> >> not >> >> >> > > >>> >> expert on JMX I was waiting for feedbacks from who knows >> more >> >> than >> >> >> > me >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> About Gary's question, I had the following thought >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxIdle >> >> >> > > >>> >> - int minIdle >> >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxActive >> >> >> > > >>> >> - long maxWait >> >> >> > > >>> >> - WhenExhaustedAction whenExhaustedAction >> >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testOnBorrow >> >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testOnReturn >> >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testWhileIdle >> >> >> > > >>> >> - long timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis >> >> >> > > >>> >> - int numTestsPerEvictionRun >> >> >> > > >>> >> - long minEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean lifo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig extends >> >> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> >> > > >>> >> - long softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig extends >> GenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxTotal >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> About the pools: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> class GenericObjectPool { >> >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory) { >> >> >> > > >>> >> this(factory, new GenericObjectPoolConfig()); >> >> >> > > >>> >> } >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory, >> >> >> > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig config) {...} >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPoolConfig getConfig() {...} >> >> >> > > >>> >> } >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> same thing for the Keyed version. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> Too simple and stupid? Maybe. But reduces the redundancies >> to >> >> 0. >> >> >> > > >>> >> Moreover I'm not sure it is just an academical way to >> >> approach the >> >> >> > > >>> >> issue, I'm sure it is more than pragmatic, simplifying the >> >> >> > > >>> >> maintainability and makes easier keep in synch the Pool >> and >> >> >> > related >> >> >> > > >>> >> Factory configuration. >> >> >> > > >>> >> Just my 2 cents, now off to bed due my local timezone :P >> >> >> > > >>> >> Simo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> >> > > >>> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> >> > So I am doing an experimental refactoring to see what >> the >> >> code >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > > >>> >> > look >> >> >> > > >>> >> like with a Config class extracted and I ran into the >> >> following. >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > The class GenericObjectPool has an >> >> >> > _softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> >> > > >>> >> > ivar >> >> >> > > >>> but >> >> >> > > >>> >> the equivalent GenericKeyedObjectPool does not. >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Is that a little hole in implementation that could have >> >> been >> >> >> > avoided >> >> >> > > >>> >> > with >> >> >> > > >>> a >> >> >> > > >>> >> common classes used for config? Even if >> >> GenericKeyedObjectPool >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > > >>> >> throw >> >> >> > > >>> a >> >> >> > > >>> >> "not implemented" exception. >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Thoughts? >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Senior Software Engineer >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Rocket Software >> >> >> > > >>> >> > 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> >> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22 >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> sure, I always wait for feedbacks before coding :P Cool >> >> >> > expression >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> "Rambo through the code", that was the first time I >> read >> >> it and >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> made >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> me laugh :D >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> All the best, >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Simo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > It seems to me there is a reason the code is the way >> it >> >> is so >> >> >> > I'd >> >> >> > > >>> really >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> like to hear thoughts from some of the original authors >> >> before >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> go and >> >> >> > > >>> >> Rambo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> through the code ;) >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Gary >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:13, "Simone Tripodi" >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Hi Gary, >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> yes that's me that raised the question[1] and >> discussed >> >> a >> >> >> > little >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> with >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Seb. What blocked me was the JMX support proposal >> since >> >> I'm >> >> >> > not >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> familiar with that technology, so I was consulting >> >> >> > documentation >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> to >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> study. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> My very big +1 for that, with the wish of work >> directly >> >> on >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > > >>> stuff. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Anyone else has a different thought, before >> proceeding? >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Simo >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/q4y7ghux57s7hk6v >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> In the same department, I see the following ivars: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> lifo : boolean >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxActive : int >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxIdle : int >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxTotal : int >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxWait : long >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> minEvictableIdleTimeMillis : long >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> minIdle : int >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> numTestsPerEvictionRun : int >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testOnBorrow : boolean >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testOnReturn : boolean >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testWhileIdle : boolean >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis : long >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> whenExhaustedAction : WhenExhaustedAction >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> defined in four classes: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericKeyedObjectPool >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericObjectPool >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericObjectPoolFactory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Which feels to me like a missed opportunity to >> avoid >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> duplication. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Is making one ivar private or final or volatile be >> >> applied >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> all >> >> >> > > >>> four >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> classes? >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> We could: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Use a config object instead of the 13 ivars. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Or a common superclass then we can consider if it >> >> should >> >> >> > hold >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> > > >>> ivar >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> list or a Config object. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Would it be too weird to have a common super class >> for >> >> >> > > >>> BaseObjectPool >> >> >> > > >>> >> and >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> BasePoolableObjectFactory for example? >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Senior Software Engineer >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Rocket Software >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 >> . >> >> USA >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto: >> >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com] >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:29 >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> To: Commons Developers List >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Subject: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Hi All: >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> I think this came up recently. Any thoughts or >> plans >> >> on >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> extracting >> >> >> > > >>> the >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Config >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool and >> >> GenericObjectPool >> >> >> > so >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> it can >> >> >> > > >>> be >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> reused. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> The constants for default values could then also >> be >> >> moved >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > > >>> Config. >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Gary Gregory >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Senior Software Engineer >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Rocket Software >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 >> * >> >> USA >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Email: >> >> >> > > >>> >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com<mailto: >> >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Web: >> >> >> > > >>> >> seagull.rocketsoftware.com< >> >> http://www.seagull.rocketsoftware.com/ >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > ---- >> >> >> > > >>> - >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> >> > dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > ---- >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> >> > dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > > --- >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > - >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
