commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: [pool] Question / potential improvement on KeyedObjectPool
Date Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:32:31 GMT
On 24/07/2012 08:42, Liviu Tudor wrote:
> Phil & others who have been in touch with [pool],
> A follow up to this: I'm trying to log this in JIRA and submit a patch but
> I've come across the following problem:
> 1/ The mechanism I am referring to had pool-1.6.0 in mind, however, I
> can't find in SVN the branch for 1.6? There are release branches going up
> to 1.5 but no 1.6? Can you point me in the right direction so I can create
> the patch in the right branch?

Pool 2.x:
Pool 1.6:
Pool 1.5:

In theory pool 1.5.x + conversion to generics = pool 1.6.x

Pool 2.x is a complete re-write of the pooling mechanism.

> 2/ Since we've moved now to pool2, I would like to apply something similar
> for [pool2], however, looking at the code, I see we now have a
>     List<K> getKeys();
> Due to the Mbean interface we're implementing. This looks similar to my
> idea of returning a Set<K> for the keys -- since the order of the keys of
> the cache is not important I thought. Looking at the code it turns out
> indeed the order is not important, so List is not justified and Set could
> have done it just fine. So am I ok to change the Mbean and the class to
> actually use a Set rather than a List?

No. Order is important for eviction. Internally it has to be a List.
Externally, the keys could be returned as a Set or a List. I don't have
any strong feelings. Regardless, we should more clearly (there is a
comment already) document the requirement for ordering of keys for
eviction somewhere in the code since it doesn't appear to be clear enough.


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

View raw message