Phil Steitz wrote: > sebb wrote: >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this >>> a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already >>> made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README. >>> >>> Thanks, all for review and sorry to take so long to get this right. >> Please note that I am still seeing the occasional test failures (even >> after the test bug fix). >> As a result, I did not revisit the -1 for the compilation problems - >> the test failure seems like a -1 to me as well. > > In that case, I am honestly inclined to just remove / disable the > tests. As I said before, they are fragile and frankly half-baked. > Unfortunately, they did uncover a real bug recently, so I am of two > minds on this. > > What is going on in the most recent failure you reported (line 376 > of TestPerUserPoolDataSource) is a ThreadGroup is started launching > 2 * maxActive threads, all of which try to get connections, hold > them for (sic) 1 ms and then release them. MaxWait is 100 ms and > maxActive is 10. This "should" work as the effective throughput > should be ~10 requests / ms (that assumes perfect efficiency and no > execution time, which is not quite right), so 20 requests should > complete in ~20 ms.
Sorry - that should be 2 ms. The test waits 100 ms. Given the fact that > perfect efficiency is obviously unrealistic, you can see that > especially with bad clock resolution and poor thread management > performance (Windoz is known for both), this is going to fail now > and then. FWIW, I have not seen a failure on OS X or Ubuntu (as OS X > guest) since sebb's last patch. > > Barring objections, I am leaning toward removing the tests. > > Phil >> I hope to try and look at the failures again tomorrow. >> >> It would be helpful if others could try running the failing test as >> well (you'll need a script to do this as it only fails about 1% of the >> time or less) >> >>> Phil >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote: >>> > Hopefully all problems with JDK versions and the site build have now >>> > been resolved. As previously discussed, the only difference between >>> > 1.3 and 1.4 is that the 1.3 sources have been filtered to exclude >>> > JDBC4 methods. Version 1.3 is for JDK 1.4-1.5 and only builds under >>> > one of these JDKs. Note that to execute the 1.3 maven build under >>> > JDK 1.4 you need a 2.0.x version of maven. >>> > >>> > Here are the artifacts: >>> > >>> > 1.3 (JDBC 3) version: >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6 >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/site >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/maven >>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_3_RC6/ >>> > >>> > 1.4 (JDBC 4) version: >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6 >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/site >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/maven >>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_4_RC6/ >>> > >>> > Release notes (common version, ships with both) >>> > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >>> > >>> > Votes, please. This VOTE will close 01-January-2010 03:30 GMT. >>> > >>> > [ ] +1 Proceed with release >>> > [ ] +0 OK >>> > [ ] -0 OK, but I would prefer... >>> > [ ] -1 No, showstopper = ... >>> > >>> > Thanks! >>> > >>> > Phil >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
