It seems to me there is a reason the code is the way it is so I'd really like to hear thoughts from some of the original authors before we go and Rambo through the code ;)
Gary On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:13, "Simone Tripodi" <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gary, > yes that's me that raised the question[1] and discussed a little with > Seb. What blocked me was the JMX support proposal since I'm not > familiar with that technology, so I was consulting documentation to > study. > > My very big +1 for that, with the wish of work directly on that stuff. > Anyone else has a different thought, before proceeding? > Thanks in advance, > Simo > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/q4y7ghux57s7hk6v > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Gary Gregory > <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> In the same department, I see the following ivars: >> >> lifo : boolean >> maxActive : int >> maxIdle : int >> maxTotal : int >> maxWait : long >> minEvictableIdleTimeMillis : long >> minIdle : int >> numTestsPerEvictionRun : int >> testOnBorrow : boolean >> testOnReturn : boolean >> testWhileIdle : boolean >> timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis : long >> whenExhaustedAction : WhenExhaustedAction >> >> defined in four classes: >> >> GenericKeyedObjectPool >> GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory >> GenericObjectPool >> GenericObjectPoolFactory >> >> Which feels to me like a missed opportunity to avoid duplication. >> >> Is making one ivar private or final or volatile be applied to all four >> classes? >> >> We could: >> >> Use a config object instead of the 13 ivars. >> Or a common superclass then we can consider if it should hold the ivar list >> or a Config object. >> >> Would it be too weird to have a common super class for BaseObjectPool and >> BasePoolableObjectFactory for example? >> >> Gary Gregory >> Senior Software Engineer >> Rocket Software >> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA >> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:29 >>> To: Commons Developers List >>> Subject: [pool] Reusing Config >>> >>> Hi All: >>> >>> I think this came up recently. Any thoughts or plans on extracting the >>> Config >>> class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool and GenericObjectPool so it can be >>> reused. >>> The constants for default values could then also be moved to Config. >>> Gary Gregory >>> Senior Software Engineer >>> Rocket Software >>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA >>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >>> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com<mailto:ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> >>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com<http://www.seagull.rocketsoftware.com/> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
