avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leif Mortenson <leifli...@tanukisoftware.com>
Subject Re: excalibur pool update
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:34:37 GMT
Stephen,
What are the reasons for breaking instrumentation out of the 
ResourceLimitingPool?
The only requirement is the instrument jar which is intentionally lite 
weight.

By breaking out the class, this will break the instrumentation support 
in several
applications that I have working. If you want another pool without the 
instrumentation
dependency then you should create a new class there.

I am still using Fortress in all of my applications.  Does Merlin make 
use of
Instrumentation or is this not a feature that is being included over 
there.  With the
talk of deprecating Fortress, I was planning to take a look at Merlin 
for my next
project.  But I make heavy use of Instrumentation.  Doing a search of 
the Merlin
source tree I don't see any reference to Instrumentation so it does not 
look like
it is supported.  I know the documentation is fairly light.  But the 
instrument and
instrument-manager jars are actually very solid.  The HTTP connector to the
instrument manager removes any need for the Altrmi dependencies.  Although
that is still supported as a way to connect from the instrument-client.

Cheers,
Leif

Stephen McConnell wrote:

>
> Have just committed some changes in the excalibur pool package:
>
>   1. create an api/impl/instrumented package separation
>      - stripped out instrumentable support in
>        ResourceLimitingPool
>      - added InstrumentedResourceLimitingPool under
>        instrumented package
>   2. removed deprecated Loggable reference, all LogKit
>      references and references to the deprecated Component
>      references
>   3. removed dependence on excalibur component testcase
>      by importing a local copy of BufferLogger to the
>      unit test sources
>   4. set version on all artifacts to SNAPSHOT
>
> The original source and build content remains unchanged.  Following 
> validation against a updated thread package I'm planning on validating 
> the suite against an updated cornerstone threads package as part of 
> the process of synchronizing cornerstone with recent excalibur 
> updates. Assuming that process goes reasonably smoothly I'll probably 
> raise the subject of releasing this content under version 2.0.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message