To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
+1!!!
that's what I would have done at the first attempt of pool2 :)
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On May 10, 2011, at 20:24, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Please raise issues and/or update changes.xml to keep
GC is not a problem if you are repeatedly allocating large objects. The
time to fill in the large objects massively dominates the GC time because GC
effort is proportional mostly to the *number* of objects, not the total
*size*.
That said, if you have large objects that vary in size you could be
On 5/10/11 9:47 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Le 11/05/11 06:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 5/10/11 9:18 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>>> Great!
>>> So we are more or less back to my initial proposition (see
>>> corresponding wiki).
>>> To sum up, we will define a new interface, called LinearOper
Le 11/05/11 06:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 5/10/11 9:18 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
Great!
So we are more or less back to my initial proposition (see
corresponding wiki).
To sum up, we will define a new interface, called LinearOperator
(should we make it RealLinearOperator? That would be consi
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
On 5/10/11 9:18 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Great!
> So we are more or less back to my initial proposition (see
> corresponding wiki).
> To sum up, we will define a new interface, called LinearOperator
> (should we make it RealLinearOperator? That would be consistent
> with the hierarchy AnyMatr
Great!
So we are more or less back to my initial proposition (see corresponding
wiki).
To sum up, we will define a new interface, called LinearOperator (should
we make it RealLinearOperator? That would be consistent with the
hierarchy AnyMatrix/RealMatrix), with the following methods
LinearOpe
On 5/10/11 7:26 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 5/10/11 8:48 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Tue May 10 15:48:22 2011
>> New Revision: 1101516
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101516&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Move to using LinkedBlockingDeque for the queue of idle objects.
>
On May 10, 2011, at 20:24, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Please raise issues and/or update changes.xml to keep track of these
> changes.
>
> I guess in this case, we might want to doc the fact that we are just
> tracking what dbcp thinks the state of the connection is. If access
> to the underlying conne
On 5/10/11 8:48 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 10 15:48:22 2011
> New Revision: 1101516
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101516&view=rev
> Log:
> Move to using LinkedBlockingDeque for the queue of idle objects.
Definitely simpler, cleaner code, but seems ther
On 5/10/11 8:48 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 10 15:48:22 2011
> New Revision: 1101516
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101516&view=rev
> Log:
> Move to using LinkedBlockingDeque for the queue of idle objects.
>
> Added:
>
> commons/proper/pool/trunk/src
Please raise issues and/or update changes.xml to keep track of these
changes.
I guess in this case, we might want to doc the fact that we are just
tracking what dbcp thinks the state of the connection is. If access
to the underlying connection is allowed and it gets modified, all
bets are off.
O
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=8181&projectId=73
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 11 May 2011 00:20:10 +
Finished at: Wed 11 May 2011 00:20:29 +
Total time: 19s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Buil
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=8179&projectId=73
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Tue 10 May 2011 23:22:00 +
Finished at: Tue 10 May 2011 23:22:10 +
Total time: 9s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Num
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=8178&projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Tue 10 May 2011 23:21:46 +
Finished at: Tue 10 May 2011 23:21:58 +
Total time: 11s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Buil
On 10/05/2011 23:52, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 10 22:52:23 2011
> New Revision: 1101670
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101670&view=rev
> Log:
> Switch GOP fully to LinkedBlockingDeque and remove all syncs associated with
> borrow/return.
> The patch is *v
> >> [...]
> >> The question is thus: Is it OK to provide pointless methods?
> >> I also wonder whether it is reasonable to _generate_ state variables just
> >> so that the accessors can return them.
> >> Usually, when a exception is constructed, it is _passed_ data that provide
> >> the context of
On May 10, 2011, at 8:18 AM, "Sebastien Brisard"
wrote:
>> [...]
>> The question is thus: Is it OK to provide pointless methods?
>> I also wonder whether it is reasonable to _generate_ state variables just
>> so that the accessors can return them.
>> Usually, when a exception is constructed,
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=8169&projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Tue 10 May 2011 17:22:14 +
Finished at: Tue 10 May 2011 17:22:25 +
Total time: 11s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Buil
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=8167&projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Tue 10 May 2011 16:22:36 +
Finished at: Tue 10 May 2011 16:22:47 +
Total time: 11s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
On 10/05/2011 16:48, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 10 15:48:22 2011
> New Revision: 1101516
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101516&view=rev
> Log:
> Move to using LinkedBlockingDeque for the queue of idle objects.
This is probably a good point to (try and) exp
On 10/05/2011 16:51, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2011, at 8:36 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Tue May 10 15:36:44 2011
>> New Revision: 1101509
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101509&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Work with Java 1.6 for now. Options for 1
On May 10, 2011, at 8:36 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 10 15:36:44 2011
> New Revision: 1101509
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101509&view=rev
> Log:
> Work with Java 1.6 for now. Options for 1.5 (e.g. copying stuff from Harmony)
> can be explored on
> [...]
> The question is thus: Is it OK to provide pointless methods?
> I also wonder whether it is reasonable to _generate_ state variables just
> so that the accessors can return them.
> Usually, when a exception is constructed, it is _passed_ data that provide
> the context of the failure (i.e.
This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 3.0 based on RC1.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_3_0_RC1/
(r1101459)
site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_3_0_RC1/
The Javado
> > [...]
> > > In fact, such an exception would be raised if the program stumbles
> > > upon to vectors x and y such as x'Ay differs from y'Ax. So, the
> > > existing NonSymmetricMatrixException would be a particular case of a
> > > more general (BasicNonSymetricMatrixException ?), with x = ei and
2011/5/10 Gilles Sadowski
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:52:57PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> > Le 09/05/11 17:31, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> > >On 5/9/11 4:27 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > >>Hi.
> > >>
> > >>>I'm currently trying to integrate my implementation of iterative
linear
> > >>>solv
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:52:57PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Le 09/05/11 17:31, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> >On 5/9/11 4:27 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> >>Hi.
> >>
> >>>I'm currently trying to integrate my implementation of iterative linear
> >>>solvers in the commons-math architecture.
> >>Tha
29 matches
Mail list logo
