commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject RE: [pool] Start work on 2.0?
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:43:12 GMT
Yes, moving forward would be great. Foremost on my list is:

0) Generification (POOL-83)

All other items are fine with me but generics is #1.

> "pool2."

That's fine by me, since removing (deprecated) methods breaks compatibility.

Gary Gregory
Senior Software Engineer
Seagull Software

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Steitz [] 
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:14
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: [pool] Start work on 2.0?

I would like to begin working toward a version 2.0 of [pool]. I 
would also like to declare the 1.x codebase as officially "bugfix 
only."  If others are OK with this and there is sufficient interest 
in working toward a pool 2.0, I will cut a 1.x legacy branch and 
start discussing / coding / applying patches for the following 2.0 
features in trunk:

0) Generification (POOL-83)
1) Replace wait/notify with 1.5+ thread management
2) JMX instrumentation and management
3) Remove deprecated methods
4) Instance tracking (holding references to instances under 
management and tracking events of interest from them - meeting DBCP 
AbanonedObjectPool requirement)
5) Clean up and extend pool maintenance

Obviously, this is just my personal wish-list for [pool] and I am 
open to any and all other ideas / itches.  What I would really like 
to know at this point is whether or not there is community interest 
in a modernized version of [pool] containing features like the ones 
listed above.

Ugly as it may be, I think that given the level of reuse of [pool], 
if we do move forward with 2.0, we will have to change the package 
name to "pool2."  So I guess I am asking for consensus to make that 
change in trunk as well.

Thanks in advance!


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message