commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Siebert <smsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] Reusing Config
Date Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:07:54 GMT
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


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
>
>

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