Ping? > -----Original Message----- > From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group > [mailto:ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com] > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. April 2012 17:43 > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: RE: have Re: MaxQueueSize for Executor and Tomcat 6 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jean-frederic clere > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. April 2012 17:33 > > To: Tomcat Developers List > > Subject: Re: have Re: MaxQueueSize for Executor and Tomcat 6 > > > > On 04/11/2012 01:34 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote: > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: jean-frederic clere [mailto:jfcl...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. April 2012 12:56 > > >> To: dev@tomcat.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: have Re: MaxQueueSize for Executor and Tomcat 6 > > >> > > >> On 04/11/2012 09:36 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote: > > >>> Ping? Some sponsor for the tc6.0 status file for the below? > > >> > > >> Won't break an application using their own executor that > implements > > the > > >> StandardExecutor? > > > > > > You mean because of the changed Executor interface? > > > > Yep. > > Ok. As far as I can see the new method > > execute(Runnable command, long timeout, TimeUnit unit); > > of the Executor interface is implemented but not used. > Would it still be an acceptable backport if > > 1. The changes to the Executor interface are removed from the patch > 2. The implementation of execute(Runnable command, long timeout, > TimeUnit unit); is removed from the patch. > > If yes I can update the patch. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
