Hi Gary,
yes, understood and agreed :)
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 13:01, "Simone Tripodi" wrote:
>
>> HiGary,
>> I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create a
On Oct 30, 2010, at 13:01, "Simone Tripodi" wrote:
> HiGary,
> I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create abstract
> classes for common settings to avoid redundancies, I don't know if it
> could make sense.
> Have a nice day!
I'm just taking it one strop at a time here to avoi
HiGary,
I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create abstract
classes for common settings to avoid redundancies, I don't know if it
could make sense.
Have a nice day!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Gary Greg
In [POOL-178] I have created a patch that IMO should make it easier for us to
further refactor code.
In brief, OP/BOP and KOP/BKOP do not have a common parent interface/class. This
patch remedies this by pulling up the close/clear/getNumActive/getNumIdle
methods into a new interface and class
