Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 5516 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 16:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 16:02:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 5535 invoked by uid 97); 29 Apr 2002 16:02:21 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 5503 invoked by uid 97); 29 Apr 2002 16:02:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 5484 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 16:02:20 -0000 Message-ID: <3CCD6E8A.6070306@apache.org> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:02:18 -0400 From: Berin Loritsch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [pool] PROPOSAL: add collecting of statistics to pool impleme ntations References: <003001c1ef96$6ae41570$8800a8c0@YellowJacket> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Steven Caswell wrote: > My problem is one of keeping the design clean. My view of Excalibur is > that it sits in a domain higher than commons. I see Excalibur as being > at an architcture level, and I see commons as being more at a foundation > level. I hesitate to have a commons package "reach" up into a higher > domain. I don't know if you can make that distinction as it is right now. Quite a few pieces of Excalibur are foundational (like the CLI impl, pooling, event architecture, instrumentation hooks, etc.). Some are quite architectural (like Fortress, ExcaliburComponentManager, Monitor, etc.) > > Having said that, I suspect there are packages in Excalibur that really > ought to be at a foundation level, and there are packages in commons > that ought to be at an architecture level. Perhaps pool should > eventually be migrated to Excalibur. Perhaps better organization of > Jakarta projects along domain lines would be appropriate. And perhaps I > need to decide if a pooling package is really foundational (as I would > label one in commons) or architectural (as I would label one in > Excalibur) and have my application architecture based on the most > appropriate domain. Perhaps the current reorg of Excalibur will make it > easier for me to do this. I hope we get done soon :) > > However, for the present, I would like to make the pooler I'm better by > adding statistics gathering. And for the present, the most expedient way > I see to do that is the implementation I proposed. Oh well, I was trying to save you alot of work. The Instrumentation package is really great stuff IMNSHO--and its not too hard to use. -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: