Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jak-commons-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com>
Subject: Re: [configuration] Compilation under Java 1.4
Followup-To: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:34:09 +0100
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <ijij1h$q88$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <4D53063E.5060104@oliver-heger.de>
 <23686F0A-ACF5-40B1-A45F-29B7D21CC789@dslextreme.com>
 <iiv5va$b29$2@dough.gmane.org>
 <DFAC3E3B-C08E-4931-B111-1562731CB1D3@dslextreme.com>
 <4D538DE3.1060909@oliver-heger.de>
 <7DE14A4D-AF8A-4C67-8E63-2E0CAE7CA6A6@dslextreme.com>
 <AANLkTine1KLb=hppUy9k5O8fxQvVnSHoHC+vS1+FJPUs@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D5AE0CD.5060604@oliver-heger.de> <4D5C3757.7000800@oliver-heger.de>
 <AANLkTikGd83djrSZe7tnVcnAtMzVtkspHn5wZMqstWx5@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D5C3E00.5040002@oliver-heger.de> <ijhgo0$9m6$1@dough.gmane.org>
 <5C8D0509-4CDB-4AD2-87B9-93B22CB4DFE5@dslextreme.com>
 <4D5CC899.2010608@oliver-heger.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.9

Hi,

Oliver Heger wrote:

> Am 17.02.2011 02:10, schrieb Ralph Goers:
>> Thanks. But I have a larger issue.
>>
>> We have been doing performance testing and the synchronization in
>> AbstractFileConfiguration,  DynamicCombinedConfiguration,  and
>> MultiFileHierarchicalConfiguration are showing up as predominant hot
>> spots.  These would be easy to fix if I could use java.util.concurrent
>> but, of course, that would require an upgrade to Java 5. The experimental
>> branch has a minimum version of Java 5 but it is nowhere near ready for a
>> release.  I'm wondering when the right time to upgrade would be?  1.8?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
> 
> This is really a good question. AFAIK other Commons components switched
> to Java 1.5 only in a major release, but given the current situation
> with end of support for older JDKs, it may be worth starting a new
> discussion.
> 
> OTOH I would not have a major problem with switching to Java 1.5, doing
> some slight API improvements by introducing generics etc., and calling
> this version 2.0. (Maybe we have then again a discussion whether package
> names must be changed.)

as long as we manage to stay binary compatible to current 1.6, it does 	
IMHO not matter if we define now Java 5 to be minimum for 1.7. Even if we 
introduce generics in some places.

However, when we start to create incompatible changes and a real 
refactoring/cleanup I am all for 2.0 with a renamed package ;-)

> I am not very happy with the experimental branch, too. If time permits,
> I would like to start something new in the sandbox from scratch to
> overcome some of the problems in our current design (e.g. the tight
> coupling of the reloading mechanism which causes these synchronization
> problems).

We actually stayed with the non-hierarchical configurations in our codebase, 
since we detected at some point a significant loss of memory (sorry, it's 
been too long now (~3 years) to give details).

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org