I would just have this new test depend on [performance] and be done with it.
Gary On Dec 25, 2010, at 0:53, "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have found what I think is a bug in GKOP[1] using [performance]. I need > the functionality in the Waiter and WaiterFactory classes in > o.a.c.performance.pool to build a test case showing the bug. Having these > classes available to pool's unit tests would be good. I am not sure what > the best approach is to make these classes available to the [pool] tests and > would appreciate some advice. I could just copy them, but I don't like the > idea of maintaining both versions. Even if [performance] was a proper > component and had a release, I don't much like the idea of adding a > dependency. I could move them to [pool]'s test package, but then > [performance] could not access them unless [pool] were to export a test > jar. Any ideas? Thanks in advance. > > Phil > > [1] For those waiting with baited breath to learn what the bug is, it > manifests as maxActivePerKey exceeded by one. This can happen when idle > instances retrieved from the pool fail validation and destroy has > non-trivial latency. The problem is (I think) the result of clearOldest not > updating the per-key internal processing counts. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
