On 13 December 2011 11:36, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Generics would help to ensure suitable types were being used, but> would do >> nothing to prevent the subtle threading bugs that misusing a> protected >> field can cause.>> To my mind, it would paper over a few cracks, whilst >> leaving gaping> holes elsewhere.> > we just voted a new maintenance release for [pool] that brings exactly > the same bugs, what should prevent us cutting a new release adding > something comfortable for our users - and some of us, included myself > - such as generics? > >> Unfortunately, because the original code was created with exposed> mutable >> data items, it's just not possible to fix it without breaking> binary >> compatibility. > > agreed, maybe I got Gary wrong but IIUC the purpose for a 1.6 release > is just providing Generics... or not? > 2.0 provides a lot more - not only locks are fixed, but internals are > more performant - so I don't see issues having 1.6 released.
But what is the point? Do generics really make enough difference to be worth spending the time on? Note also that Pool 1.x currently targets 1.3, so adding generics will force source compliance of at least 1.5. Not sure if it will force target compliance of 1.5 as well. If so, it might no longer be a drop-in replacement for some isers. > My 0.02 cents, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.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
