Ah, OK, I had not realised the allocation queue was separate.
GOP does not have a numIdle count - it uses _pool.size() - so is probably OK.
GKOP has a _totalIdle field, but it looks like it is being maintained.
I'll try adding getNumIdle() ==0 checks after all clear() method calls.
On 02/06/20
Sorry for top-post (degraded client ;)
My understanding - which I guess could be made clearer in tha javadoc
- is that clear is an operation on the *idle instance pool* and does
not affect instances checked out or pending requests (allocation
queue). Therefore, numActive should be unchanged by thi
On 02/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 02/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I just tried using the fixed numbers from a failed run (instead of
> > > > > using random ones), and it fails every time with the followi
sebb wrote:
On 02/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
I just tried using the fixed numbers from a failed run (instead of
using random ones), and it fails every time with the following
settings:
runs=26
Lengths=12,12,28
So it's clearly some kind of logic error - looks like it occurs
On 02/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just tried using the fixed numbers from a failed run (instead of
> > > using random ones), and it fails every time with the following
> > > settings:
> > >
> > > runs=26
> > > Lengths=12,12,28
> > >
> > > So it's clearly s
>
I just tried using the fixed numbers from a failed run (instead of
using random ones), and it fails every time with the following
settings:
runs=26
Lengths=12,12,28
So it's clearly some kind of logic error - looks like it occurs where
"runs" is an exact multiple of "totalInstances".
On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> > On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > sebb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> > On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > Phil Steitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > sebb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > > > sebb
On 01/06/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > > sebb wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil St
On 01/06/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> > sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > sebb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > sebb wrot
Phil Steitz wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > sebb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > sebb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > sebb wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks to all who p
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > sebb wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in RC2
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
Changes in RC2
* Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
* Restored development reports
* Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability i
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in RC2
> > > > >
> > > > > * Fixed c
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > >
> > > Changes in RC2
> > >
> > > * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > > * Restored development reports
> > > * Improved thread-safety and
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> >
> > Changes in RC2
> >
> > * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > * Restored development reports
> > * Improved thr
sebb wrote:
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
Changes in RC2
* Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
* Restored development reports
* Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests -
thanks, sebb!
Unfortunately not enou
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> > On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> > >
> > > Changes in RC2
> > >
> > > * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > > * Restored development reports
> > > * Improved thr
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
Changes in RC2
* Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
* Restored development reports
* Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests -
thanks, sebb!
* Added link to release javadoc in si
On 31/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
> >
> > Changes in RC2
> >
> > * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> > * Restored development reports
> > * Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests
On 31/05/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
>
> Changes in RC2
>
> * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> * Restored development reports
> * Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests -
> thanks, sebb!
Unfortunately not enough, see be
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
>
> Changes in RC2
>
> * Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
> * Restored development reports
> * Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests -
> thanks, sebb!
> * Added link to release javadoc in site.xml
>
The distribution looks good. If you have to make a 3rd release candidate
you may want to add a test on setConfig() and setFactory() in
GenericKeyedObjectPool to improve the coverage. But don't hold the
release for this.
Emmanuel Bourg
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Thanks to all who provided feedba
Thanks to all who provided feedback on RC1.
Changes in RC2
* Fixed copyright date in NOTICE.txt
* Restored development reports
* Improved thread-safety and timing/reliability in GOP, GKOP tests -
thanks, sebb!
* Added link to release javadoc in site.xml
* Fixed xml errors in changes.xml
* Add
28 matches
Mail list logo