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] can the CheckedObjectPool be removed when introducing Java5 generics?
Date Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:20:06 GMT
Hi all,
sorry I'm late due to my local timezone :S I'm currently working to
humorize the Java6 compiler, I hope to fix the compilation problems
ASAP.
About the Ant build, on [digester] too we decided to drop Ant in favor
of Maven build only, I don't know if it could help on taking a
decision.
Have a nice day,
Simo

PS follow below my previous test:

$ uname -a
Darwin Simones-Computer-2.local 10.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.4.0:
Fri Apr 23 18:28:53 PDT 2010; root:xnu-1504.7.4~1/RELEASE_I386 i386

$ java -version
java version "1.5.0_24"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
1.5.0_24-b02-357-10M3065)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_24-149, mixed mode, sharing)

$ mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.0 (r1004208; 2010-10-04 13:50:56+0200)
Java version: 1.5.0_24
Java home: /XXX/1.5.0/Home
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: MacRoman
OS name: "mac os x" version: "10.6.4" arch: "i386" Family: "unix"

$ mvn test
...
Tests run: 256, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0

[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/11/10 7:29 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.steitz@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 16:13
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Re: [POOL] can the CheckedObjectPool be removed when introducing
>>>> Java5 generics?
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/10 6:40 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is odd, I get:
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] Compilation failure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[496,21] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>>
>>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>>
>>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>>
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>>
>>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[506,17] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>>
>>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>>
>>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>>
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>>
>>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[514,17] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>>
>>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>>
>>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>>
>>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>>
>>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using Maven 2.2.1 with Oracle Java 1.6.0_21 on Windows Vista 64
>>>>> bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ant does not build because it expects a specific version of JUnit to
be
>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>> place, which makes me wish we either did:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Ant and JUnit to the same way [IO] does it.
>>>>> - Remove the ant build.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for patching the Ant build, Gary and thanks in advance for
>>>> fixing this problem :)
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to keep the Ant build working.
>>>
>>> In SVN: I fixed up the Ant build to use Junit jar from M2 local
>>> repository, the same way we do for IO. Which makes me wonder if we should
>>> use Ivy for Ant builds? Ideally, we should pick Ant or Maven, maintaining
>>> both it a pain.
>>>
>>
>> A mild pain for us, but important for the many, many users who do not use
>> Maven :)
>>
>
> Why would anyone not use maven!!! ;)
>
>    http://s.apache.org/m3blog
>
> ...joking aside though - if people are prepared to maintain the ant
> builds (and I am for the components I work on) then no need to get rid
> of them.
>
> Niall
>
> P.S. I only just found the Apache URL shortening service, which is cool:
>
> http://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/s_apache_org_uri_shortening
>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.tripodi@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 14:44
>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [POOL] can the CheckedObjectPool be removed when
>>>>> introducing
>>>>
>>>> Java5 generics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil, all interested,
>>>>> I just committed r1021517 that contains the Generics feature, all tests
>>>>
>>>> pass:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tests run: 256, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] Total time: 2:04.065s
>>>>> [INFO] Finished at: Mon Oct 11 23:32:07 CEST 2010
>>>>> [INFO] Final Memory: 8M/508M
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look/review if you have some spire time, after that, if
>>>>> you agree, I'd like to start working on fixing/removing deprecations,
>>>>> just let me know.
>>>>> Thanks in advance, have a nice day,
>>>>> Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>>>> <simone.tripodi@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the support Phil!!! I'm going to terminate the work on
>>>>>> generics - the attached patch on the issue provided a small subset
of
>>>>>> the whole feature - after that I already planned working on
>>>>>> deprecation stuff, I'm sure we can make the pool much easier.
>>>>>> Have a nice day, I'll keep you updated!
>>>>>> Simo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Phil Steitz<phil.steitz@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep. Good point, Matt. Thanks!  Simo pls do continue to point
out
>>>>
>>>> candidates for deprecation / removal.  I would personally like to see
>>>> pool
>>>> skinnied down a little in 2.0, with some of the specialized pools
>>>> introduced
>>>> to workaround problems in earlier impls removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Simone Tripodi<simone.tripodi@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback Matt,
>>>>>>>> maybe I got blind because of the generics strong typing,
but it would
>>>>>>>> make sense in he scenario when an existing ObjectPool<?>
  instance
>>>>>>>> doesn't expose the raw type.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Simo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Matt Benson<gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all pool team,
>>>>>>>>>> I've been working on introducing generics in the
pool on trunk, I
>>>>>>>>>> noticed the CheckedObjectPool could lose its power
when the pool
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> use the generics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't work on [pool], but I would think that there
would be a high
>>>>
>>>> likelihood of a pool's being configured e.g. by a dependency injection
>>>> container, so IMO a checked pool is still relevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, can this class (and relative static methods)
be removed from
>>>>>>>>>> PoolUtils[1], or do you have suggestions why/how
to maintain it?
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>> Simo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/trunk/src/java/org/apache
>>>> /commons/pool/PoolUtils.java
>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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