commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] 1.6 proposal
Date Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:27:50 GMT
On 13 December 2011 05:20, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 0:12, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> We keep on maintaining 1.5.x, that is very good :)
>>>
>>> But, I for one, am tired of not having generics and do not feel like
>>> rushing 2.0 just to get them.
>>
>>>
>> I think we are actually pretty close on 2.0.  I think it's best to put energy there.
 The only reason I am cutting 1.5.7 is so I can cut a DBCP release bundling a bunch of big
fixes.  Adding another pool line to chase line numbers in stack traces and port bug fixes
to does not sound fun to me.  All that is left for 2.0 is to decide on what is mutable and
some doco / general tidy.  I think Seb is right that we should be able to get 2 out with
a minimalist API and add later.
>
> Well that's good to know. I am looking for a drop in for 1.5 with
> generics and I'm pretty sure 2.0 is not going to be a drop in. I'm
> just experimenting with the code at this point, which seems pretty
> safe because generics as we all know is just compile time sugar.

Generics would help to ensure suitable types were being used, but
would do nothing to prevent the subtle threading bugs that misusing a
protected field can cause.

To my mind, it would paper over a few cracks, whilst leaving gaping
holes elsewhere.

Unfortunately, because the original code was created with exposed
mutable data items, it's just not possible to fix it without breaking
binary compatibility.

> Let's keep taking about 2.0!

Once 2.0 is fully locked down, we can look at how to ease the
transition from 1.x to 2.x.

> Gary
>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>> Which is why I propose to create a 1.6 branch/release based on the current
>>> 1.X branch just to add generics, nothing less, nothing more. This requires
>>> Java 5, but I would not make any other Java 5 related changes.
>>>
>>> Let's let 2.0 simmer until it is just so, but I want generics in 1.x!
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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