On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/10 7:29 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 16:13
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>> Subject: Re: [POOL] can the CheckedObjectPool be removed when introducing
>>> Java5 generics?
>>>
>>> On 10/11/10 6:40 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is odd, I get:
>>>>
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [INFO] Compilation failure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[496,21] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>
>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>
>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>
>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[506,17] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>
>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>
>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>
>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> \Users\ggregory\b\svn\apache.org\commons\pool\src\test\org\apache\commons\pool
>>> \TestPoolUtils.java:[514,17] reference to prefill is ambiguous, both
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apac
>>>>
>>>> he.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,K,int) in
>>>
>>> org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils and
>>>
>>> method<K,V>prefill(org.apache.commons.pool.KeyedObjectPool<K,V>,java.util.Coll
>>> ection<K>,i
>>>>
>>>> nt) in org.apache.commons.pool.PoolUtils match
>>>>
>>>> I am using Maven 2.2.1 with Oracle Java 1.6.0_21 on Windows Vista 64
>>>> bit.
>>>>
>>>> Ant does not build because it expects a specific version of JUnit to be
>>>> in
>>>
>>> place, which makes me wish we either did:
>>>>
>>>> - Ant and JUnit to the same way [IO] does it.
>>>> - Remove the ant build.
>>>
>>> Thanks for patching the Ant build, Gary and thanks in advance for
>>> fixing this problem :)
>>>
>>> I would really like to keep the Ant build working.
>>
>> In SVN: I fixed up the Ant build to use Junit jar from M2 local
>> repository, the same way we do for IO. Which makes me wonder if we should
>> use Ivy for Ant builds? Ideally, we should pick Ant or Maven, maintaining
>> both it a pain.
>>
>
> A mild pain for us, but important for the many, many users who do not use
> Maven :)
>
Why would anyone not use maven!!! ;)
http://s.apache.org/m3blog
...joking aside though - if people are prepared to maintain the ant
builds (and I am for the components I work on) then no need to get rid
of them.
Niall
P.S. I only just found the Apache URL shortening service, which is cool:
http://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/s_apache_org_uri_shortening
> Phil
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 14:44
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Re: [POOL] can the CheckedObjectPool be removed when
>>>> introducing
>>>
>>> Java5 generics?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil, all interested,
>>>> I just committed r1021517 that contains the Generics feature, all tests
>>>
>>> pass:
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 256, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [INFO] Total time: 2:04.065s
>>>> [INFO] Finished at: Mon Oct 11 23:32:07 CEST 2010
>>>> [INFO] Final Memory: 8M/508M
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look/review if you have some spire time, after that, if
>>>> you agree, I'd like to start working on fixing/removing deprecations,
>>>> just let me know.
>>>> Thanks in advance, have a nice day,
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>>> <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the support Phil!!! I'm going to terminate the work on
>>>>> generics - the attached patch on the issue provided a small subset of
>>>>> the whole feature - after that I already planned working on
>>>>> deprecation stuff, I'm sure we can make the pool much easier.
>>>>> Have a nice day, I'll keep you updated!
>>>>> Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Phil Steitz<phil.ste...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. Good point, Matt. Thanks! Simo pls do continue to point out
>>>
>>> candidates for deprecation / removal. I would personally like to see
>>> pool
>>> skinnied down a little in 2.0, with some of the specialized pools
>>> introduced
>>> to workaround problems in earlier impls removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Simone Tripodi<simone.trip...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback Matt,
>>>>>>> maybe I got blind because of the generics strong typing, but it would
>>>>>>> make sense in he scenario when an existing ObjectPool<?> instance
>>>>>>> doesn't expose the raw type.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Simo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Matt Benson<gudnabr...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all pool team,
>>>>>>>>> I've been working on introducing generics in the pool on trunk, I
>>>>>>>>> noticed the CheckedObjectPool could lose its power when the pool
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> use the generics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't work on [pool], but I would think that there would be a high
>>>
>>> likelihood of a pool's being configured e.g. by a dependency injection
>>> container, so IMO a checked pool is still relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, can this class (and relative static methods) be removed from
>>>>>>>>> PoolUtils[1], or do you have suggestions why/how to maintain it?
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>> Simo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/trunk/src/java/org/apache
>>> /commons/pool/PoolUtils.java
>>>>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
