commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <GGreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [pool] Reusing Config part 2
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:04:05 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.steitz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 08:50
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config part 2
> 
> On 10/25/10 11:26 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Thank you for working through this Simone.
> >
> > I would like to discuss something I took for granted in my experimental
> patch for [POOL-173]. I can see that you took and a more conservative (and
> safer ;) approach in your version. I am glad to see this because we can now
> more easily discuss it because it is obvious in the code now, where we have
> the following config hierarchy:
> >
> > AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig
> >     GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig
> >     GenericObjectPoolConfig
> >
> > IMO, there should be one Config class (call it GenericObjectPoolConfig for
> example.) This hierarchy reflects that the actual two generic pool classes are
> out of sync.
> >
> > For example, why should softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis exist in
> GenericObjectPool but not in GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig?
> >
> > When I think about a keyed pool vs. not, I think about a map of pools vs. a
> single pool. It does not make sense that they the have the different
> configurations as reflected by the current hierarchy.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Good point, Gary.  The softMin property could and probably should be
> extended to GKOP.  The latter does have one property though -
> maxTotal - that only makes sense for a keyed pool.

OK, that gives validity to one subclass and it feels good to have the other for symmetry even
though it would be initially empty.

Created tix for GKOP softMin: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-176

> 
> Unfortunately, another problem that we really have here is that
> several of the config parameters mean different things for keyed vs
> non-keyed pools.  For example, maxActive in a keyed pool really
> means max active *per key*.  This is why maxTotal has to exist.
> Same holds for maxIdle (but there is no "maxTotalIdle"). I have
> thought about suggesting that we rename these parameters to
> maxActivePerKey and maxIdlePerKey, resp.  Then we could dispense
> with maxTotal (and keep maxIdle meaning for the union).  We might
> want to think about doing that (though enforcing maxIdle so defined
> will add a little overhead).  The nice thing about having the
> hierarchy is that that is an easy change at this point (while we are
> breaking stuff ;).
> 
> Phil

Hm... if they do mean different things, it would be most helpful if that was reflected in
the names. I like your "PerKey" names. I also like prefixes because names then sort together
nicely in tools. getKeyedMaxActive()?

It only makes sense to reuse the names if the semantics match up. So can we go through the
exercise of naming things properly?

We could then clearly see what is in common between the two pools.

Gary

> >
> > Gary Gregory
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > Rocket Software
> > 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 • Atlanta, GA 30326 • USA
> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> > Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.tripodi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 05:36
> >> To: Commons Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>
> >> Hi all mates,
> >> I updated the jira issue uploading my patch; it contains the
> >> configuration extraction and some code modification.
> >> IMHO we shouldn't replicate the same data in both configuration AND
> >> factory/pool, when creating the factory/pool it is enough storing the
> >> configuration reference, just use it.
> >> I intentionally missed the interfaces layer, since they can be added
> >> directly in the JMX support in the required form.
> >> Please take a look at the patch and provide feedbacks, if you agree I
> >> could start committing the modifications and proceed on JMX support.
> >> Have a nice day,
> >> Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory
> >> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>  wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsiebe@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
> >>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary,
> >>>>
> >>>> Great work so far.  I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack out
> some
> >>>> simple UML "diffs", if only to wrap my head around it all. I'll upload
> the
> >>>> file to the issue once complete.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, I hope I didn't offend with the 'academic' comment, I
> >>>> most certainly did not intend to infer that there weren't functional
> >>>> importances to this issue.  I was mostly trying to delineate the two
> issues
> >>>> in my mind, and putting it to "paper" was a good way to do that =)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> S
> >>>
> >>> Hi Steven,
> >>>
> >>> No offense even considered from this end :)
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad we are going through this exercise. This will improve the
> software
> >> I am sure.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Gary Gregory
> >>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.steitz@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29
> >>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi<simone.tripodi@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> >>>>>>> it seems you've been doing a very good work, the only thing
I
> >> *suggest*
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * simplifying the mutable/immutable interfaces, one interface
for
> >>>>>>> already known common (im)mutable fields should be enough;
> >>>>>>> * adding/renaming the interfaces with the<PoolName>`MBean`
postfix
> >> to
> >>>>>>> be ready for JMX support;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> btw it seems you're now much more deep inside the topic
than me ;)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>> Simo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry I have been a little slow on this.  I will have a careful
look
> >>>>>> this eve.  Based on a very quick review, I am +1 on the idea
and
> >>>>>> approach to separate mutable / immutable.  Also +1 for JMX support.
> >>>>>> Two quick things to keep top of mind:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.  Please make sure not to lose documentation.  Whatever is
> >>>>>> documented today in protected field / internal getters / setters
docs
> >>>>>> needs to be carried forward.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Check. I did not check as I refactored that Javadocs were in the
right
> >>>>> places. That would be a requirement for a real patch. I only meant
this
> >> as
> >>>>> an experiment that went a lot further than I thought.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Somewhat related - I am fine just plowing ahead for now using
> >>>>>> existing API concepts, but some of those concepts are anachronistic
or
> >>>>>> broken, IMO, so we may later decide to revamp much of the "accounting"
> >>>>>> aspects of the  API.  That we should and will discuss on other
> >>>>>> threads.  One thing that might be good to think about at this
point,
> >>>>>> however, is getting rid of primitive properties (we started
that with
> >>>>>> whenExhaustedAction).  I think there is a DBCP issue on this
raised by
> >>>>>> Dain a couple of years ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be nice to track this someplace, I am not sure if Javadoc
is
> the
> >>>>> right place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks all for moving this along!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.tripodi@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41
> >>>>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Gary!
> >>>>>>>>> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can
you give me
> >> please
> >>>>>>>>> the issue ID?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-173
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've updated the diff file a couple of times since my
initial msg.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!!!
> >>>>>>>>> Simo
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Simone,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please see my experiment in progress here
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12457710/pool2config.diff
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>> Rocket Software
> >>>>>>>>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA
30326 * USA
> >>>>>>>>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> >>>>>>>>>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.tripodi@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>> sorry for not having been clear, but in
my previous email my
> >>>>> intent
> >>>>>>>>>>> was saying that depending on how we manage
the Config class, it
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>> influence de JMX support design, nothing
more, and since I'm not
> >>>>>>>>>>> expert on JMX I was waiting for feedbacks
from who knows more
> >> than
> >>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> About Gary's question, I had the following
thought
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig
> >>>>>>>>>>> - int maxIdle
> >>>>>>>>>>> - int minIdle
> >>>>>>>>>>> - int maxActive
> >>>>>>>>>>> - long maxWait
> >>>>>>>>>>> - WhenExhaustedAction whenExhaustedAction
> >>>>>>>>>>> - boolean testOnBorrow
> >>>>>>>>>>> - boolean testOnReturn
> >>>>>>>>>>> - boolean testWhileIdle
> >>>>>>>>>>> - long timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis
> >>>>>>>>>>> - int numTestsPerEvictionRun
> >>>>>>>>>>> - long minEvictableIdleTimeMillis
> >>>>>>>>>>> - boolean lifo
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> GenericObjectPoolConfig extends AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig
> >>>>>>>>>>> - long softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig extends GenericObjectPoolConfig
> >>>>>>>>>>> - int maxTotal
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> About the pools:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> class GenericObjectPool {
> >>>>>>>>>>>    + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory
factory) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>        this(factory, new GenericObjectPoolConfig());
> >>>>>>>>>>>    }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>    + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory
factory,
> >>>>>>>>>>> GenericObjectPoolConfig config) {...}
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>    + GenericObjectPoolConfig getConfig()
{...}
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> same thing for the Keyed version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Too simple and stupid? Maybe. But reduces
the redundancies to 0.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moreover I'm not sure it is just an academical
way to approach
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue, I'm sure it is more than pragmatic,
simplifying the
> >>>>>>>>>>> maintainability and makes easier keep in
synch the Pool and
> >>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>> Factory configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents, now off to bed due my local
timezone :P
> >>>>>>>>>>> Simo
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So I am doing an experimental refactoring
to see what the code
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> look
> >>>>>>>>>>> like with a Config class extracted and I
ran into the following.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The class GenericObjectPool has an
> >>>>> _softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ivar
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> the equivalent GenericKeyedObjectPool does
not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a little hole in implementation
that could have been
> >>>>> avoided
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> common classes used for config? Even if
GenericKeyedObjectPool
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> throw
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> "not implemented" exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rocket Software
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta,
GA 30326 * USA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.tripodi@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010
12:22
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, I always wait for feedbacks
before coding :P Cool
> >>>>> expression
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rambo through the code", that was
the first time I read it
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> me laugh :D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All the best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM,
Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>
 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me there is a reason
the code is the way it is
> >> so
> >>>>> I'd
> >>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like to hear thoughts from some
of the original authors
> >> before
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> go and
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rambo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> through the code ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:13, "Simone
Tripodi"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <simone.tripodi@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gary,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes that's me that raised
the question[1] and discussed a
> >>>>> little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seb. What blocked me was
the JMX support proposal since
> >> I'm
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with that technology,
so I was consulting
> >>>>> documentation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> study.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My very big +1 for that,
with the wish of work directly on
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> stuff.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone else has a different
thought, before proceeding?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/q4y7ghux57s7hk6v
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at
7:43 PM, Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>
 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the same department,
I see the following ivars:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifo : boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxActive : int
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxIdle : int
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxTotal : int
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maxWait : long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minEvictableIdleTimeMillis
: long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minIdle : int
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numTestsPerEvictionRun
: int
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testOnBorrow : boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testOnReturn : boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testWhileIdle : boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis
: long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenExhaustedAction
: WhenExhaustedAction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined in four classes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GenericKeyedObjectPool
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GenericObjectPool
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GenericObjectPoolFactory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which feels to me like
a missed opportunity to avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplication.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is making one ivar private
or final or volatile be
> >> applied
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> four
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use a config object
instead of the 13 ivars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a common superclass
then we can consider if it should
> >>>>> hold
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> ivar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> list or a Config object.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be too weird
to have a common super class for
> >>>>>>>>> BaseObjectPool
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BasePoolableObjectFactory for example?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rocket Software
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3340 Peachtree Road,
Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gary Gregory
[mailto:GGregory@seagullsoftware.com]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday,
October 20, 2010 10:29
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Commons Developers
List
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [pool]
Reusing Config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this came
up recently. Any thoughts or plans on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extracting
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool
and
> >> GenericObjectPool
> >>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reused.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The constants for
default values could then also be
> >> moved
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> Config.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Software
Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rocket Software
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3340 Peachtree Road,
Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> ggregory@seagullsoftware.com<mailto:ggregory@seagullsoftware.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> seagull.rocketsoftware.com<http://www.seagull.rocketsoftware.com/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-
> >> unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands,
e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands,
e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-
> >> help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Mime
View raw message