I updated the changelog and I think we are ready for a patch release. Phil
On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 12:24 PM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > That all sounds good. I can create a release candidate anytime if you want. > > Gary > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 1:43 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Given that the regression reported in POOL-427 is significant, I think we > > should move quickly to validate the fix for the regression (or revert > back > > to the previous version of the method) and create a patch release as soon > > as possible. The investigations around POOL-413 are great and should > > continue in parallel. It would be great if we could discuss ideas for > how > > to address the core issue there here instead of spread across PRs. > > > > Phil > > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 11:10 AM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I just reverted the added sync in PR #452, which violates the "no > factory > > > methods while holding locks" invariant. Strangely, the added tests for > > > POOL-426 still pass. I think the race condition is still present and > the > > > general problem in POOL-413 remains unresolved. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:55 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> The fix for POOL-425 included in the 2.13.0 release introduced a > > >> regression that makes addObject no-op when maxIdle is set to a > negative > > >> value (no limit). The POOL-425 fix also failed to account for a race > > >> condition reported in POOL-426. > > >> > > >> I have created a PR https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/pull/452 > that addresses > > >> both issues. To avoid the race condition, I had to add > synchronization to > > >> addObject. I tried several ways to avoid the race by modifying > create (as > > >> suggested by Raju Gupta, the OP for POOL-426) but I could not find a > way to > > >> do that safely without introducing other issues. I don't see the > added > > >> sync in addObject as critical as this method is not used in hot code > paths > > >> internally and the lock that it acquires is the same lock that create > will > > >> subsequently acquire if it proceeds to add an object. > > >> > > >> The regression could be addressed in a simpler way by just fixing the > > >> error in the code (failure to check for negative maxIdle). If there > are > > >> any doubts about the PR above, I am happy to make that simple > change. In > > >> any case, we should patch this quickly as it will likely break some > apps > > >> that use addObject with maxIdle unilimited. > > >> > > >> Thanks, all, and sorry for my mistake in the POOL-425 fix. > > >> > > >> Phil > > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
