Hi David, Default should be the same no - that is what we discussed IIRC? So no need to bump the minor IMO.
Le 23 janv. 2018 00:51, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit : >From a versioning perspective, do we want to bump to 7.1? We've just radically changed the instance management of the MDB container and *removed* the old code. It feels off to deliver kind of a change in a 7.0.x. The new functionality is awesome, just speaking from a change management perspective. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you Otávio Santana, Ivan Junckes and Daniel Cunha! > > https://twitter.com/TheASF/status/954212833536884736 > > []s, > Thiago. > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:45 AM, Jonathan Gallimore < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for this. I'll give this a test with a snapshot today. >> >> Thank you to Otávio Santana and Ivan Junckes for the contribution. >> >> Jon >> >> On 18 Jan 2018 15:37, "Thiago Veronezi" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> I'm going to merge the two PRs with the MDB pooling improvements. >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117 >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/119 >>> >>> I think we managed to address the comments. Thank you everyone! This was >> a >>> very nice team work. >>> >>> []s, >>> Thiago. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> SvetlinZarev, >>>> >>>> thanks for you reviewing the PR man! >>>> >>>> Regarding the `Thread.interrupted();` you are commenting: I'm not sure. >>>> This is not new code. It's something we extracted out of the existing >>>> Stateless container. >>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117#discussion_r159500850 >>>> >>>> I will investigate more, but if anyone has any idea of why we use this >>>> method, that would be awesome. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Thiago. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> The mdb container is using the default pool 10 instances limit. The >>>>> stateless container has a `MaxSize` property where the user sets the >> max >>>>> number of instances the pool can hold at one time. The mdb container >>> has a >>>>> InstanceLimit property that sets the max number of mdb instances are >>>>> available to use at one time. >>>>> >>>>> What do you guys think about deprecating that mdb property and >> creating >>> a >>>>> `MinSize` and `MaxSize` properties to match the ones in the stateless >>>>> container? >>>>> >>>>> []s, >>>>> Thiago >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Otavio and Ivan >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the fact to extract the instance management from the >> container - >>>>>> never made sense for me to reimplement it each time. >>>>>> >>>>>> However I'd like to go further and make the instance manager a >> resource >>>>>> reference in the config we can - and avoid boolean/string config like >>>>>> (InstanceManager = $myMdbInstanceMgr). >>>>>> >>>>>> Last note: usePool or default impl must be false or without pooling >> to >>>>>> not >>>>>> breaks apps and RA not supporting it, default access/wait timeouts >>> should >>>>>> be 0 for compat and perf tuning and additional threads of the manager >>>>>> should be 1 max (use a global SystemInstance#components thread if not >>>>>> configured). Also to configure the thread pool, just reuse the >> builder >>> we >>>>>> have, will avoid a lot of duplicated code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope it helps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 27 déc. 2017 21:08, "Otávio Gonçalves de Santana" < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ivan Junckes and I have been working to improve performance with >> MDB >>>>>> pools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This goal of this proposal is to improve performance in the >>>>>> message-driven >>>>>>> bean creation using a pool of 10 objects (default value). >>>>>>> The strategy is to keep these objects live so that they can be >> reused >>>>>>> instead of every time create a new one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have observed that the Websphere MQ RAR does not provide pool >>>>>> endpoints, >>>>>>> and the MDB container was initially written with the assumption >> that >>>>>> most >>>>>>> RARs do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ref: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
