Juan Pablo,
I had a further look at the WatchDog issue.
First, the overhead is quite minimal, we have just one extra thread, that
regularly "opens the kennel" and checks the WatchDogs.
Now, the EmptyStackException is just a simple bug in WatchDog.check(), I'd
like to fix it with a simple extra check for a zero-size m_stateCheck at
line 263.
synchronized( m_stateStack ) {
try {
if (m_stateStack.size() > 0) {
WatchDog.State st = m_stateStack.peek();
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
I cannot explain why this hasn't been seen earlier.
kind regards,
Harry
On 20 December 2013 23:23, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm moving open issues on JIRA scheduled for 2.10 version to 2.10.1 and
> calling the vote in a few minutes. Regarding the staging repo, I've opened
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7125 to track what's happening
> with it. We'll have the old-good fashioned convenience binaries meanwhile.
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Weber <juer...@jwi.de> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
> >
> > Jürgen
> > Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <harry.met...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> > > I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread takes
> > too
> > > long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> > > The cons are :
> > > * it clutters up our code
> > > * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> > > complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator, and
> > > more)
> > > * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
> > > correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's
> > quite
> > > some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> > > * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
> > >
> > > WDYT ?
> > >
> > > kind regards,
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Harry,
> > > >
> > > > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > > > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an
> > incorrect
> > > > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll
> recheck
> > > on
> > > > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with
> voting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br,
> > > > juan pablo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours,
> > > while
> > > > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If
> tomorrow
> > > > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> > > > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some
> > convenience
> > > > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed +
> released,
> > so
> > > > binaries effectively reach Central..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <
> harry.met...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Juan Pablo,
> > > > >
> > > > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until
> now
> > is
> > > > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is
> > > empty!
> > > > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > > > at
> > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > > > at
> > > > >
> > org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > > > >
> > > > > kind regards,
> > > > > Harry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> > > required
> > > > to
> > > > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going
> to
> > > be
> > > > > run
> > > > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the
> > staging
> > > > > repo,
> > > > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0
> > > > release
> > > > > > will be called.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > br,
> > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > siegfried.goes...@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on
> > maven
> > > > > > central
> > > > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> > > repository[#1]
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating
> UPGRADING
> > > and
> > > > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are
> > met.
> > > > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the
> meantime,
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most
> > likely
> > > > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue
> to
> > > do
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it
> > > before
> > > > > > voting
> > > > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > > siegfried.goes...@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> > > different
> > > > > > wikis
> > > > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate?
> > Better
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest
> release
> > 9
> > > > > months
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in
> > any
> > > > > case,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If
> we
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with
> > latest
> > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy
> > those
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >>> back
> > > > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some
> > duplicated
> > > > > > > classes)
> > > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to
> 2.9.2,
> > > > > > because I
> > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > managers
> > > > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time
> > > > coding
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow
> us
> > to
> > > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > > > glen.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product
> > > just
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> > > Apache-esque
> > > > > way
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If
> > none
> > > > of
> > > > > us
> > > > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope
> changes
> > > > soon
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <juer...@jwi.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos
> Rodríguez"
> > <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.san...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or
> > two
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should
> release
> > > > > 2.10.0
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish
> > the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> > > harry.met...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <
> juer...@jwi.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there
> > > seems
> > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
