Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

In Nexus, I see https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396 owned by struberg. Where are we on this? Gary On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 4:58 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > To clarify why this change was done: > This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed t

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:06 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Yes, not destroying the borrowed object would be an option. I didn't want to > go down that route as there are multiple reasons why a borrowed object is not > valid anymore. > E.g. it could be 'consumed', it could be broken, shouldn't b

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

Yes, not destroying the borrowed object would be an option. I didn't want to go down that route as there are multiple reasons why a borrowed object is not valid anymore. E.g. it could be 'consumed', it could be broken, shouldn't be used do to maxUsageTime is over, etc. That's why I opted for ca

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/26/18 1:23 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 11/26/18 8:29 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 11/26/18 6:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: Hi Phil! Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/26/18 8:29 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 11/26/18 6:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: Hi Phil! Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM, so

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/26/18 8:29 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 11/26/18 6:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: Hi Phil! Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM, so

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/26/18 6:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: Hi Phil! Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM, so it is completely up to you and the active

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

I think we still need to address what happens if null gets returned in create(). This was something I missed. Not sure if it got addressed in the meantime? LieGrue, strub > Am 26.11.2018 um 14:26 schrieb Rob Tompkins : > > > >> On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >> Hi Gary

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Hi Gary! > > I've added multi-line comments in the middle of code blocks I touched. > e.g. > https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/blob/016a1f67263fe1cde1d910dc7002d972811951c5/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectP

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

Hi Phil! > I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it > seems to me > that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. I thought about that as well! Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen. So I

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

Hi Gary! I've added multi-line comments in the middle of code blocks I touched. e.g. https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/blob/016a1f67263fe1cde1d910dc7002d972811951c5/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java#L919 I also tried to write extensive commit comments. LieG

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:51 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > On 11/23/18 2:57 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was > needed to prevent a dead-lock > >> > >> *grabbing a f

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

> On Nov 23, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > On 11/23/18 2:57 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was >> needed to prevent a dead-lock >> >> *grabbing a fresh coffee* le > > I am sorry I did not look carefully enough

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/23/18 2:57 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock *grabbing a fresh coffee* le I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change.  After reviewing the DBCP tic

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:57 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was > needed to prevent a dead-lock > > *grabbing a fresh coffee* > > > Am 23.11.2018 um 10:49 schrieb Mark Struberg : > > > > This change (putting a new item back to the

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

To clarify why this change was done: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool which caused an efective shutdown of all the server by staling the pool in various cases. This solved my problem. I created test to make sure to not introduce new ones. B

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock *grabbing a fresh coffee* > Am 23.11.2018 um 10:49 schrieb Mark Struberg : > > This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a > dead-pool -

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:48 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > Sorry ENOTIME, but I remembered that there is a nullsafe > addIdleObject (see how addObject does it). In fact, you might just > replace the manual create and add with just a call to addObject > itself. That will also passivate the object befo

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

Sorry ENOTIME, but I remembered that there is a nullsafe addIdleObject (see how addObject does it).  In fact, you might just replace the manual create and add with just a call to addObject itself.  That will also passivate the object before putting it into the pool, which is IIRC an invariant (

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

A unit test? Yes please! :-) Gary On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:23 PM Mark Struberg wrote: > +1 for the null check. > > Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch? > > I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the > dead-lock. > So any improvement should be rather on

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

+1 for the null check. Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch? I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the dead-lock. So any improvement should be rather on the safe side from here on. Regarding the RC: this is really not needed anymore when working with G

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On 11/19/18 8:19 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:04 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it. IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:04 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: > I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it. > IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to the usual process would be

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

AFAIK source-release is quite standard @asf so likely saner to use that from now on IMHO. Agree sources is needed but Think Mark's point was more about assemblies than default release artifacts. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:22 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Oki, I now see what you mean. > > We actually have 3 source zips now. > > .src.zip > .source-release.zip > src.jar > > That's a mess. > > There should only be 2: > * source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources. > This

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it. Cheers, -Rob > On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Oki, I now see what you mean. > > We actually have 3 source zips now. > > .src.zip > .source-release.zip > src.jar > > That's a mess. > > There shoul

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1

Oki, I now see what you mean. We actually have 3 source zips now. .src.zip .source-release.zip src.jar That's a mess. There should only be 2: * source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources. This includes the pom, build structure etc. * src.jar is the sources which are au