> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config > > Gary, > > Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack out some > simple UML "diffs", if only to wrap my head around it all. I'll upload the > file to the issue once complete. > > BTW, I hope I didn't offend with the 'academic' comment, I > most certainly did not intend to infer that there weren't functional > importances to this issue. I was mostly trying to delineate the two issues > in my mind, and putting it to "paper" was a good way to do that =) > > Cheers, > > S
Hi Steven, No offense even considered from this end :) I'm glad we are going through this exercise. This will improve the software I am sure. Gary > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Gary Gregory > <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29 > > > To: Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config > > > > > > On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > it seems you've been doing a very good work, the only thing I *suggest* > > is > > > > > > > > * simplifying the mutable/immutable interfaces, one interface for > > > > already known common (im)mutable fields should be enough; > > > > * adding/renaming the interfaces with the <PoolName>`MBean` postfix to > > > > be ready for JMX support; > > > > > > > > btw it seems you're now much more deep inside the topic than me ;) > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Simo > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I have been a little slow on this. I will have a careful look > > > this eve. Based on a very quick review, I am +1 on the idea and > > > approach to separate mutable / immutable. Also +1 for JMX support. > > > Two quick things to keep top of mind: > > > > > > 1. Please make sure not to lose documentation. Whatever is > > > documented today in protected field / internal getters / setters docs > > > needs to be carried forward. > > > > Check. I did not check as I refactored that Javadocs were in the right > > places. That would be a requirement for a real patch. I only meant this as > > an experiment that went a lot further than I thought. > > > > > > > > 2. Somewhat related - I am fine just plowing ahead for now using > > > existing API concepts, but some of those concepts are anachronistic or > > > broken, IMO, so we may later decide to revamp much of the "accounting" > > > aspects of the API. That we should and will discuss on other > > > threads. One thing that might be good to think about at this point, > > > however, is getting rid of primitive properties (we started that with > > > whenExhaustedAction). I think there is a DBCP issue on this raised by > > > Dain a couple of years ago. > > > > It would be nice to track this someplace, I am not sure if Javadoc is the > > right place. > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > Thanks all for moving this along! > > > > > > Phil > > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory > > > > <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41 > > > >>> To: Commons Developers List > > > >>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Gary! > > > >>> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can you give me please > > > >>> the issue ID? > > > >> > > > >> It's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-173 > > > >> > > > >> I've updated the diff file a couple of times since my initial msg. > > > >> > > > >> Gary > > > >> > > > >>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!!! > > > >>> Simo > > > >>> > > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > >>> http://www.99soft.org/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Gary Gregory > > > >>> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >>> > Hi Simone, > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please see my experiment in progress here > > > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12457710/pool2config.diff > > > >>> > > > > >>> > 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: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] > > > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53 > > > >>> >> To: Commons Developers List > > > >>> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> Hi, > > > >>> >> sorry for not having been clear, but in my previous email my > > intent > > > >>> >> was saying that depending on how we manage the Config class, it > > could > > > >>> >> influence de JMX support design, nothing more, and since I'm not > > > >>> >> expert on JMX I was waiting for feedbacks from who knows more than > > me > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> About Gary's question, I had the following thought > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig > > > >>> >> - int maxIdle > > > >>> >> - int minIdle > > > >>> >> - int maxActive > > > >>> >> - long maxWait > > > >>> >> - WhenExhaustedAction whenExhaustedAction > > > >>> >> - boolean testOnBorrow > > > >>> >> - boolean testOnReturn > > > >>> >> - boolean testWhileIdle > > > >>> >> - long timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis > > > >>> >> - int numTestsPerEvictionRun > > > >>> >> - long minEvictableIdleTimeMillis > > > >>> >> - boolean lifo > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig extends AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig > > > >>> >> - long softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig extends GenericObjectPoolConfig > > > >>> >> - int maxTotal > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> About the pools: > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> class GenericObjectPool { > > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory) { > > > >>> >> this(factory, new GenericObjectPoolConfig()); > > > >>> >> } > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory, > > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig config) {...} > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPoolConfig getConfig() {...} > > > >>> >> } > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> same thing for the Keyed version. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> Too simple and stupid? Maybe. But reduces the redundancies to 0. > > > >>> >> Moreover I'm not sure it is just an academical way to approach the > > > >>> >> issue, I'm sure it is more than pragmatic, simplifying the > > > >>> >> maintainability and makes easier keep in synch the Pool and > > related > > > >>> >> Factory configuration. > > > >>> >> Just my 2 cents, now off to bed due my local timezone :P > > > >>> >> Simo > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > >>> >> http://www.99soft.org/ > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Gary Gregory > > > >>> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> > So I am doing an experimental refactoring to see what the code > > would > > > >>> >> > look > > > >>> >> like with a Config class extracted and I ran into the following. > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > The class GenericObjectPool has an > > _softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis > > > >>> >> > ivar > > > >>> but > > > >>> >> the equivalent GenericKeyedObjectPool does not. > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > Is that a little hole in implementation that could have been > > avoided > > > >>> >> > with > > > >>> a > > > >>> >> common classes used for config? Even if GenericKeyedObjectPool > > would > > > >>> >> throw > > > >>> a > > > >>> >> "not implemented" exception. > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > Thoughts? > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > 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: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] > > > >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22 > > > >>> >> >> To: Commons Developers List > > > >>> >> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> sure, I always wait for feedbacks before coding :P Cool > > expression > > > >>> >> >> "Rambo through the code", that was the first time I read it and > > > >>> >> >> made > > > >>> >> >> me laugh :D > > > >>> >> >> All the best, > > > >>> >> >> Simo > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > >>> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Gary Gregory > > > >>> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> >> > 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 > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > >>> >> >> 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
