geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Why both concurrent and backport-util-concurrent?
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:47:06 GMT
I've updated both patches:

     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2354

--jason


On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> Wow! I never expected you to do the conversion... very cool.
>
> Here are the notes from my review  (I think only the first item is  
> necessary and the rest are ideas or observations):
>
>     I don't think we need to import the Latch class from  
> concurrent.  We should be able to use the CountDownLatch class with  
> the initial size set to 1.  This will also let us avoid the long  
> discussion on the proper way to import the code :)
>
>     It doesn't look like AbstractSinglePoolConnectionInterceptor  
> ever uses the writeLock in the ReentrantReadWriteLock so it may be  
> possible to replace that lock with a simpler ReentrantLock.
>
>     I never noticed that Java5 atomics only have an incrementAndGet  
> method and no increment method
>
>     The changes in the configuration for the Executor in Java5 seem  
> much better.
>
> -dain
>
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Can someone peek at the patch I submitted which converts the code:
>>
>>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2354
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any reason why we are using both of these libraries?  Why don't  
>>>> we just convert to backport-util-concurrent so that we are  
>>>> closer to being ready to use 1.5's java.util.concurrent... and  
>>>> have one less bootstrap library to load?
>>>
>>> ...and that is the reason.  No one has taken the time to convert  
>>> over the code.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message