commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsw.com>
Subject RE: [Pool] What's left for a release?
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:28:22 GMT
David,

Well, here we could split this into two issues. I do not like (1) and I am
in favor for (2).

(1) Which exact one field in GenericObjectPool would we need to change to
protected access to address our current problem? We could make this one
field protected in 2.0. We could then create our own subclass and define the
behavior we need. You would end up with GenericObjectPool that has one ivar
protected and all others private, which is oddly inconsistent and needs to
be explained in the docs. The next time a problem shows up which /could/
have been solved with a subclass, we are back to where we started: You could
subclass if only field f was protected instead of private. I claim this is
not the way to go.

(2) GenericObjectPool is a nice re-usable class, at runtime. As the Javadoc
states it is "configurable". My claim is that full reusability would be
better served by allowing advanced use of the class via subclassing. 

Here, http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/pool/, states: "A generic object
pool interface that clients and implementors can use to provide easily
interchangable pooling implementations." (Webmaster, interchangable ->
interchangeable.)

Well, we would like to be implementing our own pool to customize behavior in
GenericObjectPool, but we cannot. Hence the request to simply make fields
and methods that are now private protected. This would allow subclassing to
work, always. Why not solve this problem once? 

Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue, BTW.

Gary

PS: I cannot tell how many times this happens with third party code... GG.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:00 AM
To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Pool] What's left for a release?

Specifically, which fields do you want protected access for that you can't 
get to via accessors?

David



>From: Gary Gregory <ggregory@seagullsw.com>
>Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" 
><commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: [Pool] What's left for a release?
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:46:55 -0400
>
>Hello,
>
>Could you address why doing (2) only be an issue?
>
>It certainly would be fast task, I am volunteering of course!
>
>Thanks,
>Gary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:44 AM
>To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [Pool] What's left for a release?
>
>-1 on changing this for 2.0.  Struts needs this release soon.
>
>David
>
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Could we address http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19192
> >for
> >2.0?
> >
> >This is not a simple issue but it is very important for our application. 
>I
> >see two issues raised in GenericObjectPool by 19192:
> >
> >(1) What is the "correct" or desired default behavior? If we need a 
>release
> >very soon (to satisfy a Struts dependency for example), this would argue
> >for
> >not changing the locking behavior without some serious unit tests added 
>in
> >this department. So, if time is of the essence, don't touch it, and we 
>can
> >discuss it post-2.0.
> >
> >(2) If we consider that a goal for the class GenericObjectPool is that it
> >be
> >customizable on top of "configurable" (Javadoc comment), by which I mean
> >extendable/subclassable, then we should change the protection of fields 
>and
> >methods from private to protected to allow for this to happen. This is 
>not
> >the first time that we have seen the suggestion that a feature/bug could
> >have been addressed by subclassing but that in fact could not due to
> >field/method protection. (I am leaving aside the fact that one can change
> >any code in [pool] and recompile).
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: James Mitchell [mailto:jmitchell@apache.org]
> >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 4:16 AM
> >To: jakarta-commons-dev@apache.org
> >Subject: [Pool] What's left for a release?
> >
> >Initial search in bugzilla for pool turned up 3 bugs (ok, 2 bugs and 1
> >Enhancement).  The 2 bugs that were there have patches available.
> >
> >I was wondering if there were any specific reasons (other than
> >time/resources)
> >that those patches had not been committed.
> >
> >We are pushing for a RC2 over in the Struts camp and we depend on a new
> >release of Pool.  I'd like to help with this if I can.
> >
> >Your thoughts?
> >
> >
> >--
> >James Mitchell
> >Software Developer/Struts Evangelist
> >http://www.open-tools.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message