Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=uv8aY5Bd+QGzYYMBuBy0yptZGG3fjCif07NsKqSvJaHYtRwn2mUzVxAPQnzFM/7WOE
         CU0bsYjMAUYoqGjcKMQIs22tXqfT3HabG+MsHVQHt0wJXxu9o+864yR7w0JVQzhVWv+g
         yxa/KbRo8BGnjINNlogzGO1OQloWtdR0AHBKY=
Message-ID: <4C8D1879.2090807@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:14:17 -0400
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: [pool] Start work on 2.0?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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!

Phil

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