Hi,
thanks Bob, I'll cut a release then now - if we improve things we can
simply cut a new one afterwards.
Now, if blacklisting is used (the default), synchronous event sending is
done in a separate thread. For asynchronous sending there are two threads
involved, the first one acting like kind of
The test harness sets up several event handlers which receive the events
and update the count of events received. The timing is stopped when the
count of events received is equal to the number of events sent. The
code does not set a timeout for the event admin and I'm not seeing any
handlers
Are you turning off blacklisting of event handlers and making sure that all
events are actually received by someone as well?
On 21 Aug 2014, at 17:15 pm, Bob Paulin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got some things in progress but nothing that should hold up the release.
> I'm seeing a significant varia
Hi,
I've got some things in progress but nothing that should hold up the
release. I'm seeing a significant variance in the test results so I've
been making some tweaks to the IT that should hopefully smooth that out.
Perhaps the most interesting result I'm getting from the tests is
that th
THanks for your patch Bob, it's applied. The next release of the event
admin will have the version 1.4.0.
I would like to cut a release as soon as possible, or do you think
something needs to changed before?
Carsten
2014-08-18 13:22 GMT+02:00 Carsten Ziegeler :
> Hi Bob,
>
> I think there is n
Hi Bob,
I think there is no good reason to keep it separate, I guess I just forgot
to merge them into trunk :)
Therefore, patches welcome :)
Carsten
2014-08-17 20:31 GMT+02:00 Bob Paulin :
> Hi,
>
> Carsten would it make sense to move the IT test from the whiteboard to the
> regular code base?
Hi,
Carsten would it make sense to move the IT test from the whiteboard to
the regular code base? These tests only take about a minute and require
a profile to run anyways so I think include them would be a good idea.
I'd be happy to integrate the poms to allow this unless there's a reason
Hi,
2014-08-15 15:28 GMT+02:00 Jan Willem Janssen
:
>
> On 15/08/14 14:58, Bob Paulin wrote:
> > I noticed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3511 Java
> > Concurrency is being introduced to the code base. A couple of
> > thoughts on this.
> >
> > 1) With this not being backwards c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Bob,
On 15/08/14 14:58, Bob Paulin wrote:
> I noticed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3511 Java
> Concurrency is being introduced to the code base. A couple of
> thoughts on this.
>
> 1) With this not being backwards compatible wi
I noticed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3511 Java
Concurrency is being introduced to the code base. A couple of thoughts
on this.
1) With this not being backwards compatible with earlier versions does
it make sense to increment at least the minor version (ie 1.3 -> 1.4).
10 matches
Mail list logo
