Why not add an (or a small set of) MBean(s) to where you can not only manage some of the mutable values, but also add the capability to runtime monitor the pool through jconsole and 3rd party JMX/network monitoring systems? This would keep the pool API the same, reducing the need for you to maintain these in later versions. IMHO you would be gaining a lot more from this approach.
If desired, I will volunteer to write the patch for this. I am using this approach to monitor my pools, adding accessors for configuration values is fairly trivial. Regards, Steve On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi guys, > I'd add that not all properties are configurable, we should add > setters only in case it makes sense, or not? > All the best, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> > wrote: > > > >> Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > >>> I too would like to be able to tweak the size of the pool at runtime. > >>> > >>> Gary > >>> > >>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 13:19, "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Simone Tripodi > >>>> <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Phil! :) > >>>>> honestly I didn't understand which are the use cases when a pool > needs > >>>>> to be reconfigured, that's why I've always used the pool in > "configure > >>>>> and use" modality and Seb's suggestion sounded good to me. OTOH I > >>>>> didn't modify any single code line before hearing your thoughts since > >>>>> you know much more than me. > >>>>> If pool's property are mutable, so I need to add the setters, make > >>>>> them final otherwise :P > >>>> > >>>> What if you want to alter the way the pool works at runtime? Perhaps > >>>> you're seeing that it keeps causing long waits because you're not > >>>> allowing it to grow big enough? > >> > >> Why then not create a new pool and take over ownership of the objects? > >> > > There may be instances out in circulation. Also requests waiting, > maintenance in progress, etc not to mention the need to redirect clients. > The flexibility to be able to increase pool size or change other parameters > on the fly is good IMO and where we can safely support it without > performance impact we should. > >> - Jörg > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >
