On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 13:07 -0500, Michael Heuer wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/12/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 13:44 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
has anyone run a long stress test?
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/12/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 13:44 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
has anyone run a long stress test?
if not, i'm willing to code up something and set it
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 00:18 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
snip
is it time to take seriously the possibility of a bug in synchronisation
being an explanation?
I've added a comment to bugzilla.
has anyone run a long stress test?
if not, i'm willing to code
robert burrell donkin wrote:
has anyone run a long stress test?
if not, i'm willing to code up something and set it running on my debian
box for a few days. i'd appreciate a second pair of eyes on the code (to
avoid mistakes).
My attempt at one is attached to bugzilla - SoakLRUMap. I've only
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 13:44 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
has anyone run a long stress test?
if not, i'm willing to code up something and set it running on my debian
box for a few days. i'd appreciate a second pair of eyes on the code (to
avoid
On 11/12/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 13:44 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
has anyone run a long stress test?
if not, i'm willing to code up something and set it running on my debian
box for a few days. i'd
robert burrell donkin wrote:
The removeIndex is the index of the hash bucket, not the hash code. This
bit of code is simply trying to find the entry before that we want to
remove, where we already know the entry we want to remove.
got that bit but missed the use of header to store order
: Re: [collections] any objections?
robert burrell donkin wrote:
The removeIndex is the index of the hash bucket, not the hash code. This
bit of code is simply trying to find the entry before that we want to
remove, where we already know the entry we want to remove.
got that bit but missed
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:38 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:39 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
the reported issues seem only to occur when synchronizedMap is used. has
anyone looked for a pattern in JVM versions?
No, not yet
or tried to
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:39 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
the reported issues seem only to occur when synchronizedMap is used. has
anyone looked for a pattern in JVM versions?
No, not yet
or tried to replicate using a multi-threaded test rig?
Bugzilla contains a
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:39 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Big +1. Agree with Stephen and share frustration over 32573. I have
spent quite a few hours trying to replicate or prove that the only
way to make this happen is via unsynchronized access.
proving that would be tough :-/
the reported
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:39 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Big +1. Agree with Stephen and share frustration over 32573. I have
spent quite a few hours trying to replicate or prove that the only
way to make this happen is via unsynchronized access. Another set of
eyes on that issue would be
robert burrell donkin wrote:
had it in mind just to add some more material to a few classes i was
using yesterday.
Well, all improvements are welcome!
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i'd like to dive in with some improvements to the javadocs. i'm going
add myself to the list of committers and get started sometime soonish.
+1
so now would be a good time for people to jump in with any objections,
comments or warnings...
Apart from LRUMap's
Big +1. Agree with Stephen and share frustration over 32573. I have
spent quite a few hours trying to replicate or prove that the only
way to make this happen is via unsynchronized access. Another set of
eyes on that issue would be great. That code could also use some doco
improvements, so if
15 matches
Mail list logo
