+1
Checked build, tests, built jar, reports, release notes. All look good.
Checked build on
Maven 3.9.3
openjdk version "17.0.10" 2024-01-16
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 17.0.10+7-Ubuntu-120.04.1)
Phil
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:48 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have fixed a
etawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
>&
mannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> htt
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:03 PM Bernd Eckenfels
wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote on 13. Feb 2024 20:46 (GMT +01:00):
> > Thanks, Gary. I agree with everything below. I think it's best to just
> > leave things as they are.
>
> If it’s plugable the project might not have to care,
POOL-407 tracks a basic liveness problem that we have never been able to
solve:
A factory "goes down" resulting in either failed object creation or failed
validation during the outage. The pool has capacity to create, but the
factory fails to serve threads as they arrive, so they end up parked
ause for whatever reason, is
> reusable, but we throw it away.
>
> HTH,
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:42 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > In DBCP-595, a change is suggested to force close connections when a
> fatal
> > SQL exception has occurred. As of
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:35 AM Phil Steitz wrote:
> To make it easier to follow and find later, let's move the discussion
> started in [1], [2] here.
>
> The request made in the Jira [1] and implemented in the PR [2] to send
> beginRequest and endRequest messages to drivers s
In DBCP-595, a change is suggested to force close connections when a fatal
SQL exception has occurred. As of Version 2.2 of DBCP, fatal exceptions
are tracked and the fastFailValidation property can be set to fast fail
validations when a fatal exception has occurred on a connection. This
change
To make it easier to follow and find later, let's move the discussion
started in [1], [2] here.
The request made in the Jira [1] and implemented in the PR [2] to send
beginRequest and endRequest messages to drivers seems reasonable to me, but
just implementing unilaterally by default is probably
What exactly is the point of the default goal? I mean when is it expected to
be used? Automations? Pipes of some kind? It’s not always executed, right?
So if I say “clean” was the default, “mvn test” would not mean “mvn clean
test”, right?
Phil
> On Oct 8, 2023, at 7:11 AM, sebb
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 1:42 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Le 03/10/2023 à 20:18, Bruno Kinoshita a écrit :
> > Same for me, I prefer to know ahead of time if there are any issues with
> > dependencies.
>
> But the Commons components are mostly dependency-less, we are flooded by
> dependabot
be provided on the command line? I
detest settings.xml, btw. Not under source control, throw-back to the
old special local voodoo build days.
Phil
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 02:33, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > +1 but why then are those properties there?
> >
> > Phil
> &g
+1 but why then are those properties there?
Phil
> On Oct 2, 2023, at 3:58 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> As the subject says, please do not use the pom to store RM details such as
>
> commons.releaseManagerName
> commons.releaseManagerKey
>
> These properties are personal to the user, and should be
Thanks, Seb. Where, btw, do the commit diffs for the site go?
Phil
On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 6:09 AM sebb wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 13:32, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Sebb. Strange that some of the links work but not others.
>
> The relative link
Looks good to me. I tested source tarball build with
Linux #93~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 6 16:15:40 UTC 2023 x86_64
openjdk version "1.8.0_382"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_382-8u382-ga-1~20.04.1-b05)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.382-b05, mixed mode)
and
openjdk version
-pool2
2.12.0
Thanks in advance for bug reports, suggestions for improvement, patches or
other contributions to the Apache Commons community.
Phil Steitz
-Apache Commons Team
later.
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:41, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the site-relative links in
>>>> https://github.com/apache/commons-parent/blob/master/src/site/site.xml
>>>> are not working.
>>>>
>&g
I am not sure what is causing this, but somehow the links generated for
component sites with the current parent and plugins are messed up in the
General Information section (which appears on some sites and not others).
In verifying the updated [pool] site, I see that for some reason the links
for
This vote has passed with binding +1 votes from
Bruno Kinoshita
Gary Gregory
Rob Tompkins
Phil Steitz
and no other votes.
Thanks to all who reviewed the release candidate.
Phil
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some signific
After carefully reviewing the Spotbugs report, I am going to change my vote
to
+1
Most of the complaints are about returning references vs copies of things
in getters. The SA_LOCAL_SELF_COMPARISON complaint looks legit, but
probably harmless because it appears to have been there for a long
Build from unpacked source distro works fine under
Linux 5.15.0-83-generic #92~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 21 14:00:49 UTC 2023
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Apache Maven 3.9.3 (21122926829f1ead511c958d89bd2f672198ae9f)
openjdk version "17.0.8.1" 2023-08-24
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build
Here is my +1, based on testing in the VOTE mail.
Phil
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant enhancements
> since Apache Commons Pool 2.11.1 was released, so I would like to release
> Apache Commons Po
] +1 Release these artifacts
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
Thanks!
Phil Steitz,
Release Manager (using key 4E2DDD47E19863BB87211544CD3038FEF07D567E)
The following is intended as a helper and refresher for re
But then looking at git itself, I don't see any mod to the old tag and the
new one looks OK.
Phil
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 2:47 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> This does not look good. I was following instructions in [1]. I just did
> git tag -s commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 -m "Tag Commons P
t; in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-pool.git
>
>
> *** WARNING: tag commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 was modified! ***
>
> from ed218a61 (commit)
> to 2abd33d4 (tag)
> tagging ed218a61eaf2753dcd7aafbf050558b0a3550768 (commit)
> replaces rel/commons-pool-2.11.
l>"*
> >
> >
> > Eric Bresie
> > ebre...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 7:32 PM Gilles Sadowski
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le sam. 16 sept. 2023 à 23:54, Phil Steitz a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> &g
It has been quite a few years since I cut a Commons release, but I would
like to step up for pool 2.12. I think the code in the 2_X branch is
ready. All of my soak tests and tests with my own apps and dbcp passed. I
am sure a lot has changed since I last did this. Is there a checklist or
ate, no need to apologize :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 6:31 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> > Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or
> > convince myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the
> delay
> >
> > > O
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>> OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 changes, we
>> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the
>> keylock. I think I also finally definitive
drop the new "Duration" ones and
remove deprecations for the ones they replace. I can see the argument that
it is better to tell users now, but that takes away flexibility in 3.0 and
makes the API look very confusing with so many methods that do the same
thing. Any objections ?
Phil
I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now in
the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good news is
it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and
earlier versions. I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and if it
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:17 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:27 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > We have a minor source compat break still in 2.x
> >
> > The change to have BaseGenericObjectPool implement Autocloseable forced
> > add
We have a minor source compat break still in 2.x
The change to have BaseGenericObjectPool implement Autocloseable forced
addition of an abstract close method. Technically, that could break
subclass implementations that don't implement close. I see three options
here. Maybe someone else has a
me of our methods return a Duration and others an Instant, so there, I
> think the type in the method name makes sense. Then, for a bit of symmetry,
> it's nice if the setter and getter names are the same (minus the set/get
> prefix obv).
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023,
release and the perfect and expected time to bump Java
> versions IMO.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 17:21 Alex Herbert wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 19:38, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, that sounds good.
> > >
> > >
I am going through now and comparing diffs of 2.11.1 and head of 2.x to
make sure that me and sed did not do anything wrong and I am seeing a bunch
of things like this:
-void addObject() throws Exception, IllegalStateException,
-UnsupportedOperationException;
+void addObject()
9:32 Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks for the update :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I am doing soak tests now on the 2,x branch code and with DBCP.
> >>
> >
JMX support for 3.0?
>
> Just curious,
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:32 Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks for the update :-)
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> &
s removed locally and will push in a
> day or two.
>
> What remains:
> - do we want to keep the JMX code?
> - should 3.0 use Java 11 or 17?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023, 16:41 Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> > Why exactly do we need to s/Time/Duration in all of the me
Why exactly do we need to s/Time/Duration in all of the method names?
Duration is a measure of time. I don't get why this is necessary and it
will force people to change (eventually). I was +1 to get rid of the
"millis" in the names, but this change seems needless to me. Also, there
are still
: exceptions and API changes.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:01 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> guarantees that neither branch will miss any fix.
Thanks, Gary. I will take that approach.
Phil
>
> Gary
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 14:29 Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>> I think the code in master is close to releasable modulo the breaking
>> change that we
I think the code in master is close to releasable modulo the breaking
change that we have agreed should move to 3.x. The clean way to proceed on
the 2.x branch would be to go back to the commit that introduced the new
exception type parameter, cut the branch from there and then port all of
the
I think I may have figured this out. I reopened and added a comment to
POOL-411.
Phil
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
> I guess it's good news that CI hit the error below when reviewing the PR
> that I had prepared for the POOL-391 fixes. I only saw it
I guess it's good news that CI hit the error below when reviewing the PR
that I had prepared for the POOL-391 fixes. I only saw it once in many
test runs and only on OpenJDK 20.0.1. Looks like CI is running 17 on
azure-linux. I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with the changes in the
PR,
+1
Phil
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a switch from the 2.12.0 vote mail thread in order to discuss 3.0
> and 2.x releases.
>
> I propose we switch master to 3.0 and create a branch called 2.x based and
> an old commit and release 2.12.0 from there.
>
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:08 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Gary Gregory
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Great presentation in the video Elliotte. Thanks for sharing the link.
>
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Great presentation in the video Elliotte. Thanks for sharing the link.
>
+1 many thanks.
Now back to our hero. Let me pretend to be one of the people in the
audience of the video.
We have this library that is used by all kinds of
y call sites!
The problem is you are asking *many* users to be welcoming of this task,
which I do not think should happen in a minor release.
The
> debate is valid and I hope we have interesting replies to this thread.
>
> Thank you for reading all of this!
>
Thank you for
them? Please let's get some input from
downstream users before surprising them with this.
Phil
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:55 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:43 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> YW and thank you for the revi
gt; post-release).
>
> For the other items, I will try and reproduce. My tests builds were ok on
> Windows 10 and macOS latest with Java 8. Maybe by hardware is too slow or
> too fast compared to yours, hard to say.
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 16:53 Phil Steitz wrot
Hi Gary, First, thanks for doing this. There are a lot of good fixes in here.
I checked the build, sigs et al on a couple of platforms and did not
find anything major except one item. I will start with the
show-stopper (IMO) and then the other smaller things.
1. I get compilation failure when
h I
did since no one at the time supported that they be diverted
to another ML).
Did anything change since then?
[Or do we eventually question the general anomaly that code
discussions have been almost completely off-loaded to GH?]
Gilles
Am 28.12.2021 um 19:20 schrieb Phil Steitz <
phil.st
I can no longer effectively monitor commits@ due to the spam generated
by this tool. I am afraid my eyeballs aren't the only ones going
missing here and that is a problem much more severe than any value
provided by this tool, IMO.
Phil
expect to throw NSEE.
Phil
Gary
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 2:29 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
Recently I had a the following need, which I have seen on the user list
a few times over the years.
I have a list of resource provider instances that I want to maintain
pools of connections to and I want to load
about optimizing across pools.
Phil
TY!
Gary
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 1:29 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
Looking at POOL-350, I realized that we don't really have a coherent
strategy for handling liveness issues in GKOP. We have been playing
whack-a-mole with problems resulting from two fa
Recently I had a the following need, which I have seen on the user list
a few times over the years.
I have a list of resource provider instances that I want to maintain
pools of connections to and I want to load balance connection requests
across the pools. I can back this using GKOP, but
On 11/14/21 2:29 AM, Alex Herbert wrote:
Both the discrete and continuous distribution have a property in the interface:
/**
* Indicates whether the support is connected, i.e. whether
* all values between the lower and upper bound of the support
* are included in the
Looking at POOL-350, I realized that we don't really have a coherent
strategy for handling liveness issues in GKOP. We have been playing
whack-a-mole with problems resulting from two facts about how GKOP works:
1. There are two capacity constraints that bind on individual keyed
pools at
On 6/29/21 8:08 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-06-29, Miguel Munoz wrote:
Catching all RuntimeExceptions and wrapping them in an IOException
looks like the cleanest solution. RuntimeExceptions usually mean bugs,
so if the archive code is throwing them due to a corrupted archive, it
makes
It's hard to tell what the actual change is below with all of the
formatting / cosmetic changes mixed it, but AFAICT there is no sync
control to ensure consistency or currency of the stats reported. Some
note in javadoc or somewhere should be added to make it clear that stats
may not
First, many thanks for the cleanup work.
One thing to bear in mind for the loop changes is that in some cases the
underlying collections may be changing as the loops progress. In theory,
unit tests should pick up any problems introduced, but we should look
carefully at this.
Phil
On
On 12/1/20 3:19 AM, Kanak Sony wrote:
Hey Developers,
I have been trying to debug the library in Intellij and in respect to that
trying to run test cases of Apache Commons Lang in intellij but I was
unable to find the same. Can anyone of you please suggest me if any such
resources are
, 2020 at 8:30 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/14/20 10:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:07 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 9/14/20 9:36 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
This feature is now in Pool master. I will prepare an RC soon if you
all think we are good to go so we can then move
On 9/14/20 10:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:07 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/14/20 9:36 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
This feature is now in Pool master. I will prepare an RC soon if you
all think we are good to go so we can then move on to DBCP.
I am still working
Sounds good. I implemented the DBCP changes this weekend but did not
finish testing and I had to make some decisions that would be good to
talk about. I will ask about that in another thread. I think the pool
changes are fine though and will meet the need.
On 9/21/20 7:55 AM, Gary Gregory
, Sep 7, 2020, 19:08 Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:02 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/3/20 2:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil Steitz wrote:
If others agree it is a good idea for dbcp, I can do it. I can see the
argument that its better to stay with close() even
On 9/3/20 2:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil Steitz wrote:
If others agree it is a good idea for dbcp, I can do it. I can see the
argument that its better to stay with close() even for abandoned and I
have not been able to get the deadlock to happen, so I would like
ent.
Phil
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
Von: Mark Thomas
Gesendet: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:44:52 AM
An: dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?
On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil Steitz
On 8/30/20 4:00 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 2:30 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 8/30/20 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hm... would we need the flexibility of passing custom enums? For example,
CloseMode could be an interface implemented by various enums in the style
.
[*] New enum
?
Gary
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:02 PM Gary Gregory
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-user.
The OP
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
A pool-related deadlock was reported
On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-user.
The OP was using a different pool, but it looks to me like the same
deadlock could happen with dbcp. The source is arguably
A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-user.
The OP was using a different pool, but it looks to me like the same
deadlock could happen with dbcp. The source is arguably a driver bug,
but in [2], the driver maintainer makes the good point that to avoid the
problem in
On 7/24/20 1:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi all
here I'd like to explain why I prefer not to update dependencies just
because we can. Maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong. I've tried to
make this point in different threads but either it has been lost or it
just wasn't worth discussing.
On 7/8/20 8:33 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 7:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand
what
On 7/5/20 7:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand
what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails
sporadically (I have seen
On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand
what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails
sporadically (I have seen this myself) is that to succeed it needs to
run
On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand
what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails
sporadically (I have seen this myself) is that to succeed it needs to
run two evictor cycles when it is set
The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand
what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails
sporadically (I have seen this myself) is that to succeed it needs to
run two evictor cycles when it is set to wait for only one. I may be
wrong as I don't
to look into this.
>>
>> Can you think of a better propertyname than
>> limitPreparedStatementPoolToConnectionUse? While the meaning is clear (at
>> least to me), it's also quite long.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> From: Phil Steitz
>> Sent: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020
On 6/29/20 12:17 PM, Robert Paschek wrote:
Hello,
DBCP has a feature to pool PreparedStatements for the lifetime of a connection.
This results in cursors being open and locks in the database for a long time,
which could cause problems with administrative tasks in the database. That why
I
+1 (nonbinding)
Checked build, sigs, reviewed changelog, release notes and ran my soak
tests. All looks good to me.
Thanks, Gary!
Phil
On 12/10/19 7:57 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
My +1
Gary
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 6:09 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
We have fixed a few bugs and provided
Thanks!
I was able to see history both ways and found the tags under "releases"
Phil
On 10/11/19 4:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 11/10/2019 à 02:39, Phil Steitz a écrit :
Today I tried to find where a bug reported against what I suspect is
DBCP 1.4 (I think that is likely wha
Today I tried to find where a bug reported against what I suspect is
DBCP 1.4 (I think that is likely what tomcat 7 pulls in) was fixed. It
appears to be fixed in the 1.5 branch, but it is impossible now to
actually see history via the browser. The git browser has a "history"
link, but
On 10/7/19 8:37 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:27 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 10/5/19 12:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 10/5/19 5:47 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:17 AM sebb wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 02:32, Gary Gregory
wrote:
Hi Phil and all
On 10/5/19 12:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 10/5/19 5:47 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:17 AM sebb wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 02:32, Gary Gregory
wrote:
Hi Phil and all:
It looks like you merged from the "old" git repo
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/a
ght.
Phil
[1] http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-pool/scm.html
Gary
Thank you,
Gary
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:06 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 10/1/19 4:27 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:03 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
Good news. I think I now understand the actual roo
On 10/1/19 4:27 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:03 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
Good news. I think I now understand the actual root cause for
POOL-376. Bad news is the fix that I committed masks but does not
really fix the problem. I will update the ticket and commit a full fix
it requires a race between the evictor and a borrower
under the right conditions.
Phil
On 9/28/19 3:56 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 16:43 Phil Steitz wrote:
Well, I don’t have one as I don’t have a test case in hand that creates
the condition other than my hacked version
;> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 20:22 Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:57 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/19 6:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:05 PM Phil Steitz
>>&g
On 9/25/19 6:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:05 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/25/19 5:47 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:32 PM Phil Steitz
wrote:
I would say yes, but I would also like to add a fix for the similarly
nasty POOL-326. I can do
On 9/25/19 5:47 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:32 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
I would say yes, but I would also like to add a fix for the similarly
nasty POOL-326. I can do that in the next 24 hours. While I still don't
have a test case hitting it and I am not satisfied
I would say yes, but I would also like to add a fix for the similarly
nasty POOL-326. I can do that in the next 24 hours. While I still don't
have a test case hitting it and I am not satisfied with my understanding
of why the createCount counter gets messed up, the fix in my last
comment on
Thanks, Seb. I was trying to merge a contributor's PR using the github
gui. I assumed that being unable to do that means I don't have karma to
push. I will try later via the command line.
Phil
On 9/23/19 5:11 PM, sebb wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 00:16, Phil Steitz wrote:
I am set up
and set your GitHub user name, I do not see
it set ATM.
Gary
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:50 AM Rob Tompkins wrote:
IIRC that’s a Gary task, but if it’s not, I’d love to know how to
accomplish that.
Cheers, -Rob
On Sep 22, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
I don't seem to have karma
I don't seem to have karma to commit to commons git. I would like to
merge a PR for [pool] and add a test case. What do I need to do to get
this back? I am psteitz on github.
Phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 9/7/19 2:30 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi all
What is the status of graph at commons - or apache if we have something
elsewhere?
I found in sandbox that doc
https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/apidocs/org/apache/commons/graph/DirectedGraph.html,
but wonder if we have
. What you say above,
Roman, indicates that if we do it right we can have it both ways. That
will be great. We should just confirm performance characteristics.
Phil
Le ven. 30 août 2019 à 01:02, Gary Gregory a
écrit :
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:17 PM Phil Steitz wrote:
On 8/29/19 6:37 AM
On 8/29/19 6:37 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All:
In https://github.com/apache/commons-dbcp/pull/34, I've reduced a ton of
boilerplate code using lambdas. This also happens to fix a bunch of places
where we did not call checkOpen() when we should have.
Interesting. I have a couple of
1 - 100 of 2784 matches
Mail list logo
