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 Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:22:23 GMT
Phil,

I don't think we have removed the ability to access the config options
programmatically from the config instance.  You can either get a reference
to it post-construct/build or from the getConfig() method on the pool.
 Non-config properties remain the same, accessible through the pool API.
 The JMX instance would be the only class not exposed public (internal to
the pool instance), which would access the config properties through the
accessors/mutators (which is why I requested the config classes be made
thread-safe).

(come to think of it, I don't see a getConfig() on at least one pool....add
this?)

I could very well be missing something, though.  I'm working from home now,
working on a separate project with nothing to do with pool, and trying to
consider this at the same time =)

S

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/25/10 9:06 AM, Steven Siebert wrote:
>
>> Hi Simone,
>>
>> You have two +1's waiting for you in the JIRA comments =)
>>
>> My comments from tracker:
>>
>> "I took a look at this last night but didn't get a chance to comment =)
>>
>> I like the patch, I believe this does indeed satisfy the issue.
>>
>> One question I have, since we're eliminating the primitive configuration
>> properties within the pool/factory classes, we're making the Config
>> objects
>> publicly accessible, and possibly accessing through JMX is the idea of
>> making the Config objects thread-safe. This would certainly reduce the
>> need
>> to have to externally synchronize (and possibly introduce bugs) every
>> time.
>>
>
> Sorry, I missed this before commenting on POOL-174.  I don't see it working
> this way - i.e., providing public access to the config instance used to
> construct the pool at runtime for JMX or other purposes.  Pool properties
> should still be exposed via threadsafe accessors / mutators, including
> runtime properties not set by the config (e.g. numActive, numIdle).
>
> Phil
>
>>
>> Another issue we probably need to open another ticket for is to deprecate
>> the constructors we've eliminated in 1.5.
>>
>> Last suggestion/question is about making inner (public static final)
>> Builder
>> pattern classes within the concrete Config classes (and possibly defining
>> an
>> abstract<T extends Abstract*Config>  create() method in the Abstract
>> class).
>> This would further simplify the programmatic creation of the Config
>> classes.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> +1 on Simones patch...we can add any of the above after it has been
>> committed."
>>
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Simone Tripodi<simone.tripodi@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>
>>> 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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message