Honestly, I agree with Paul. Let's release early and often! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > Is it too radical to suggest POOL 2 be 1.5 and POOL 3 be 1.6? Just > bump up major version every time you target a new major JDK. > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 06/05/2011 16:24, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 5/6/11 3:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>>> Before I go too far down the road of the re-writing the core object >>>> allocation code for pool2, I'd like to get some clarity on what the >>>> minimum Java version targeted by pool2 should be. >>> >>> It is also logical to ask at this point if the rewrite is desirable >>> / necessary and what we expect to gain from it. I have pretty >>> consistently advocated this, but given the work and inevitable >>> stabilization required, we should at least ask the question. Seems >>> to me the goals should be 0) performance 1) maintainability 2) >>> robustness 3) (configurable?) fairness. Do you agree with these and >>> are you sure the rewrite is necessary to get them? >> >> Yes I agree. To address 0), we need to remove most/all of the >> synchronisation around object allocation. That means a re-write, almost >> certainly with java.u.c. I still have concerns around 1) & 2). The more >> I think about this problem, the more I realise I need to spend more time >> thinking about the problem. At the moment, I would rather take the time >> and get this right. >> >>>> It is currently 1.5. >>>> >>>> It would make the implementation of the FIFO/LIFO allocation option >>>> considerably easier if that was changed to 1.6. >>> >>> Can you explain a little what the problem is? >> >> Sure. In pool1 we have the ability (via CursorableLinkedList) to remove >> and insert idle objects at any point in the queue. We use this for the >> evictor and idle validation. It we switch to java.u.c (and I think it is >> almost certain we will have to to get the performance we want) there are >> far fewer options over object insertion/creation. >> >> In Java 1.5, LinkedBlockingQueue only supports FIFO. It is not possible >> to remove from the tail of the queue or insert at the head. That makes >> LIFO pretty much impossible to implement. >> >> In Java 1.6, LinkedBlockingDeque allows inserts and removals at either >> end of the queue. That solves the LIFO/FIFO issue but not the eviction / >> idle validation questions. I have some ideas about this but I am trying >> to avoid creating lots of complexity. I am also mulling over how to >> ensure that maxActive and friends are adhered to. >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
