On 6/25/11 4:28 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 17/06/2011 09:02, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2011 00:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> I think 2.0 is the opportunity to do this right. Almost like we were
>>> designing this from scratch.
>>>
>>> Making the factory an invariant of the pool sounds good.
>>>
>>> Otoh If a setFactory method exists it should be implemented fully. The
>>> throw an exception impl is pretty "smelly".
>> I agree that it is smelly. I'm not sure we can change this without a
>> huge amount of work in DBCP.
> I think largely due to the clean-up Phil has already done in DBCP, this
> is now manageable. I have just done this for GOP and will do the same
> for GKOP next (exact timing TBD).
+1 - definitely better. Will test and review and if I get to if
before you, handle GKOP. Thanks for doing this.
Phil
> Mark
>
>> Mark
>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2011, at 13:39, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/11 10:19 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 16/06/2011 17:32, sebb wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 June 2011 17:25, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yesterday I fixed some [dbcp] "problems" caused by the new [pool]
>>>>>>> requirement that setFactory can only be called once. The quotes are
>>>>>>> because most of the problems were redundant calls to setFactory.
>>>>>>> The reason that we left setFactory in [pool] is that [dbcp]'s
>>>>>>> connection factory constructors call setFactory on the pool passed
>>>>>>> to them. It is an easy "mistake" to create a pool, then create a
>>>>>>> connection factory and then do pool.setFactory(factory). I
>>>>>>> eliminated all of these usages from within [dbcp], but I bet a fair
>>>>>>> amount of user code will similarly blow up when people upgrade.
>>>>>> AIUI, the upgrade does require code to be changed because of the package
>>>>>> rename?
>>>>> It does, but that is just a search and replace and compilation will fail
>>>>> until it is fixed.
>>>>>> If so, can we not drop the setFactory method and provide it as a
>>>>>> constructor parameter?
>>>>> I don't think so. We have been around this buoy already.
>>>>>
>>>>> To quote Phil's summary:
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> I think it is more natural to have
>>>>> pool = new GKOP(factory,...) have factory.setPool(this) as a side
>>>>> effect than
>>>>> factory = new KPOF(...,pool...) have pool.setFactory(this) as a side
>>>>> effect
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with Phil on this. Since a pool only has one factory whereas
>>>>> a factory may support multiple pools,
>>>> I had not thought about it that way before. What is humorous is
>>>> that that logic makes it questionable to pass the pool to the
>>>> factory constructor (or at least just one pool). In the case of
>>>> [dbcp]'s PoolableConnectionFactory, it is hard-wired 1-1 to the
>>>> pool because it needs to provide the PoolableConnections that it
>>>> sources a reference to their owning pool. I guess a generalized PCF
>>>> could source objects for multiple pools, in which case the
>>>> constructor could take a collection of pools. I now see your
>>>> point. In any case, from my perspective, the requirement to be able
>>>> to set the factory is understood and I am fine with keeping the code
>>>> as it is, possibly with the small patch below.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is wrong for for "new
>>>>> GKOP(factory,...)" to have "factory.setPool(this)" as a side-effect. I
>>>>> think "new KPOF(...,pool...)" having "pool.setFactory(this)" as a side
>>>>> effect is the more natural choice (as per the current code).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to keep backsliding here, but maybe we should to this in GOP
>>>>>>> setFactory:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> synchronized (factoryLock) {
>>>>>>> if (this.factory == null) {
>>>>>>> this.factory = factory;
>>>>>>> - } else {
>>>>>>> + } else if (this.factory != factory) {
>>>>>>> throw new IllegalStateException("Factory
>>>>>>> already set");
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>> I'd be OK with that. If we sort out logging we can log it at INFO as
>>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
