commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br>
Subject Re: [jcs] Request for review
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:13:27 GMT
Hi Thomas,

> Thanks, I'm trying to pull things straight to make it usable it current
> environments. I use the old version a lot. The code has more than 400
> unit tests and a few disabled ones. Some tests tend to fail every now
> and then (timing dependent). Those problems are hard to spot. I could
> need some help...

I don't have a project using [jcs], but I can help debugging, running 
tests in Linux with different JVM's, and other minor issues :-) As I 
have used ehcache in some JEE projects, I'm specially interested in 
learning if it is a good idea to replace ehcache by [jcs], as it looks 
like it has better performance [1] and more features.

> I'm afraid this is not enough information to understand what you mean.
> Could you be a bit more specific, please?

Sure. I was only suggesting that maybe you could try adding generics to 
[jcs] and when in doubt, consult the [functor] SVN history and look for 
what was done. But I had a look on [jcs] code, and its codebase is much 
bigger than [functor]'s. And I've also noticed that some of the warnings 
are due generics in arrays. In some cases it is simply not possible to 
generify the types used in arrays (you can use collections, or suppress 
the warning), not sure if it is the case in [jcs] though.

I will read more the [jcs] codebase to see if I can spot some places to 
generify the code and remove some warnings :-) There is something about 
generics in arrays, and 'generifying' legacy code in [2].

All the best,

[1] http://commons.apache.org/jcs/JCSvsEHCache.html
[2] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5/pdf/generics-tutorial.pdf

Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://www.kinoshita.eti.br
http://www.tupilabs.com

On 06/02/2012 04:28 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> On 01.06.12 06:31, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote:
>>   Hi,
>>
>> [jcs] seems very interesting :-) and maybe I could use it in some applications too
(or at least knowing about it may help).
>
> Thanks, I'm trying to pull things straight to make it usable it current
> environments. I use the old version a lot. The code has more than 400
> unit tests and a few disabled ones. Some tests tend to fail every now
> and then (timing dependent). Those problems are hard to spot. I could
> need some help...
>
>> I'm not an expert in generics, but some time ago similar task was done in [functor],
maybe we could use that as base. I will read the changes in [functor] and will try to review
the warnings in [jcs], and then comment or propose patches.
>
> Well, my impression with generics is that you can overdo it easily.
> Maybe it's not necessary in the deeper layers of the library and it only
> causes trouble. That's why I'm asking for reviews.
>
>>
>> In case you would like to take a look on what was done in [functor], check r1188373
until r1188409 more or less. There may be more to be done in [functor] as it hasn't been released
yet, but the new version with generics is working perfectly, no broken tests, no changes in
the functionality, and I think there are no warnings.
>
> I'm afraid this is not enough information to understand what you mean.
> Could you be a bit more specific, please?
>
> Bye, Thomas.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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