commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] runtime re-configuration
Date Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:26:32 GMT
On 12 October 2010 16:03, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/10 7:32 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Seb,
>> I totally agree, I'm for this solution, BTW I'll wait the Phil's
>> opinion that knows more than me.
>> Thanks!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:50 PM, sebb<sebbaz@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2010 10:20, Simone Tripodi<simone.tripodi@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> while fixing the deprecated properties in classes like
>>>> StackKeyedObjectPool[1], I noticed this class instance was
>>>> re-configured during the test[2] (see line 126); is the
>>>> "reconfigure-in-runtime" a pool feature we want? I'm asking because
>>>> I've never experienced the pool reconfiguration (I've never had the
>>>> need to do it) so I honestly don't know which is the wished behavior.
>>>> In the scenario we want to keep this feature, since I'm converting
>>>> fields as private, I need to add setters.
>>>> Just let me know!!! Have a nice day,
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the tests that modify the configuration are to be dropped once
>>> the variables are made private.
>>> The idea was not just to make the variables private, but to make them
>>> final as far as possible to improve thread safety.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Phil can confirm this?
>
> The only property that I think we have agreed at this point to make
> immutable is the factory.  I am open to talking about making other
> properties immutable, but I think we should get some broader input on this
> topic.

The field in question is _maxSleeping which has already been marked as:

"@deprecated to be removed in pool 2.0.  Use {@link #getMaxSleeping()}"

The field is settable by using the appropriate constructor.

I thought we had decided to make such fields final as part of POOL-169?

Indeed, it seems it was psteiz who committed r990437 which added the
deprecated comment ...

> Phil
>>>
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/bjw
>>>> [2] http://s.apache.org/qB
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.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