commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.
Date Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:18:28 GMT
Hi James,
IMHO the Read/Write lock stuff is a very cool idea, it rocks!!!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, James Carman
<james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gary Gregory
> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought we said that pools settings should be configurable. The current Config
root class has setters.
>>
>> Are we saying that, yes, pools are configurable post-creation but not through config
objects? Should config objects be cloned when passed in a constructor then?
>>
>
> My opinion is that the config objects should be immutable.  Then, you
> don't have to worry about synchronization issues.  You'd just have the
> reconfigure(Config) method (which is called by the constructor).  The
> reconfigure method would take care of making sure it locks down
> (synchronizes) everything while he does all the reconfiguring of the
> pool.
>
> I would probably suggest a read/write lock.  Folks who want to borrow
> an object from the pool or return and object to the pool would be
> obtaining the "read" lock.  When you are in the middle of
> reconfiguring the pool, you'd obtain the "write" lock.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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