commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [pool][performance] Source management question
Date Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:02:28 GMT
I would just have this new test depend on [performance] and be done with it. 


On Dec 25, 2010, at 0:53, "Phil Steitz" <> wrote:

> I have found what I think is a bug in GKOP[1] using [performance].  I need
> the functionality in the Waiter and WaiterFactory classes in
> o.a.c.performance.pool to build a test case showing the bug.  Having these
> classes available to pool's unit tests would be good.  I am not sure what
> the best approach is to make these classes available to the [pool] tests and
> would appreciate some advice.  I could just copy them, but I don't like the
> idea of maintaining both versions.  Even if [performance] was a proper
> component and had a release, I don't much like the idea of adding a
> dependency.  I could move them to [pool]'s test package, but then
> [performance] could not access them unless [pool] were to export a test
> jar.  Any ideas?  Thanks in advance.
> Phil
> [1] For those waiting with baited breath to learn what the bug is, it
> manifests as maxActivePerKey exceeded by one.  This can happen when idle
> instances retrieved from the pool fail validation and destroy has
> non-trivial latency.  The problem is (I think) the result of clearOldest not
> updating the per-key internal processing counts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message