Well, now I really do need to apologize. I looked carefully again at the japicmp report and now agree that it is best to leave things as they are. I don't think it is likely we will change the names again and this is what deprecations are for. So as far as I am concerned, things are good to go. I will continue testing (including with the new DBCP release) and encourage others to review the code and test their apps as well; but I don't think any more changes are needed to the code in the 2_X branch now.
Phil On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 3:40 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the update, no need to apologize :-) > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 6:31 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or > > convince myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the > delay > > > > > On Sep 9, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > Where are we on a 2.12.0 release candidate? > > > > > > Gary > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 > > changes, we > > >> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from > the > > >> keylock. I think I also finally definitively fixed the root issue > > there. > > >> The tricky bit about the numInterested tracking is that the counters > are > > >> attached to the ObjectDeques, which can be replaced. If this happens > > while > > >> waiting for a write lock in either register or deregister, the code > can > > end > > >> up updating the counter on a pool that has been replaced. I added > > checks > > >> to trap deregistration of a null pool (should never happen) and > followed > > >> Sebb's suggestion to add a check for numInterested going negative. > The > > >> accounting setup is very efficient, but tricky to maintain. For 3.0, > we > > >> might consider moving numInterested tracking to a hashmap. For 2.x, I > > >> think the setup is fixed now and performance is the same as earlier > > >> versions. Soak tests look good. > > >> > > >> One last thing I would like to do before we cut 2.12.0: > > >> > > >> We are going to be making incompatible changes in 3.0 and I don't > think > > we > > >> need to telegraph all of the API changes via deprecations in 2.x - > most > > >> notably the recent method name changes of the form s/Time/Duration. I > > >> understand the rationale for these changes, but they make the 2.x code > > very > > >> messy with double deprecations - first from the "millis" methods and > > then > > >> from "Time" to "Duration." I think it would be better to keep the > > existing > > >> deprecations for the "millis" methods, but drop the new "Duration" > ones > > and > > >> remove deprecations for the ones they replace. I can see the argument > > that > > >> it is better to tell users now, but that takes away flexibility in 3.0 > > and > > >> makes the API look very confusing with so many methods that do the > same > > >> thing. Any objections ? > > >> > > >> Phil > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 3:59 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is > now > > in > > >>> the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good > news > > is > > >>> it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and > > >>> earlier versions. I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and > > if it > > >>> turns out not to be real, figure out what is causing it. Hopefully I > > will > > >>> get to this done in the next few days. > > >>> > > >>> Phil > > >>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > >
