Thanks a lot Seb, your suggestions are always appreciated :)
Thanks for the sample, I see your troubles on ctor/builder, I think it
makes much more sense when the number of arguments is very large, like
the Generic(Keyed)ObjectPool(Factory). Do you have options to suggest?
Thanks in advance.
Abou
On 28 October 2010 18:50, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Seb,
> thanks for your feedbacks. Please read my questions inline your comments
>
>> The public StackObjectPoolConfig ctor repeats the settings available
>> in the nested Builder.
>> I'm not sure I see the point of having both. Or perhaps the ct
Hi Seb,
thanks for your feedbacks. Please read my questions inline your comments
> The public StackObjectPoolConfig ctor repeats the settings available
> in the nested Builder.
> I'm not sure I see the point of having both. Or perhaps the ctor is
> supposed to be private?
I'm sorry but I didn't u
On 28 October 2010 15:16, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi again James, all,
> please review my last commit[1], I refactored the Config and related
> (Keyed)StackObjectPool(Factory), I tried to implements the concepts
> we've been discussing in this thread.
The public StackObjectPoolConfig ctor repeats
Hi again James, all,
please review my last commit[1], I refactored the Config and related
(Keyed)StackObjectPool(Factory), I tried to implements the concepts
we've been discussing in this thread.
If this fits to our vision, I can follow applying the refactor to
Generic(Keyed)ObjectPool(Factory).
Ma
Hi James,
thanks, understood. I take in charge yet another cycle of refactoring,
I'll ping you all when in trouble about something :)
Have a nice day and thanks for the feedbacks!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, James Carman
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> That's why I wouldn't follow the option #2; but please, explain me
> which are the side effects of that design, so I can avoid to repeat
> the same mistake in the future.
>
If you make the config objects immutable, you can just keep the con
Hi all guys,
sorry to be late but I had to read all the resume before posting
something useful :P
So, briefly, just my 2 cents with the hope to contribute in a useful way:
About the JMX support, that could involve also the whole design, I
suggest on keeping out the Configuration but rather taking
:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 08:50
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config part 2
>>
>> On 10/25/10 11:26 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 08:50
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config part 2
>
> On 10/25/10 11:26 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Thank you for working thr
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 08:43
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config part 2
>
> Gary,
>
> I tossed this around as well, and noted these fields as a &
On 10/25/10 12:36 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
I notice now what I missed on initial review of Simo's patch - the pool
accessors now manage the config properties via persisted Config members. I
am OK with this, but it now means that the Config c
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I notice now what I missed on initial review of Simo's patch - the pool
> accessors now manage the config properties via persisted Config members. I
> am OK with this, but it now means that the Config classes have to be
> mutable. What nee
ceed on JMX
support.
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<
http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thurs
4.760.1560
Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
-Original Message-
From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 05:36
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
Hi all mates,
I updated the
Software
> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 • Atlanta, GA 30326 • USA
> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2
Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
Gary,
Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack out
some
simple UML "diffs", if only to wrap my head around it al
> -Original Message-
> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 05:36
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> Hi all mates,
> I updated the jira issue uploading my patch; it contains the
> config
; could start committing the modifications and proceed on JMX support.
>>> Have a nice day,
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>>>
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
y
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
Gary,
Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack out
some
simple UML &qu
he.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
Gary,
Great w
jira issue uploading my patch; it contains the
> >> >> configuration extraction and some code modification.
> >> >> IMHO we shouldn't replicate the same data in both configuration AND
> >> >> factory/pool, when creating the factory/pool it is enough storing the
data in both configuration AND
>> >> factory/pool, when creating the factory/pool it is enough storing the
>> >> configuration reference, just use it.
>> >> I intentionally missed the interfaces layer, since they can be added
>> >> directly in the J
t; >> directly in the JMX support in the required form.
> >> Please take a look at the patch and provide feedbacks, if you agree I
> >> could start committing the modifications and proceed on JMX support.
> >> Have a nice day,
> >> Simo
> >>
> >
ns and proceed on JMX support.
>> Have a nice day,
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory
>
ginal Message-
> >> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
> >> To: Commons Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> Great wor
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
>> To: Commons Developers List
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> Gary,
>
> Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm go
:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
> >
> > On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> > > it seems
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> > it seems you've been doing a
oft.org/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>
om]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>>
>> Hi Gary!
>> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can you give me please
>> the issue ID?
>
> It's https://issues.apach
> -Original Message-
> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> Hi Gary!
> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can you give
greg...@seagullsoftware.com
> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Confi
Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> Hi,
> sorry for not having been c
seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>>
>> sure, I always
4.760.1560
Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:51
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> I apologize for not getting the proposal for the MBean API out quite yet -
> need
d, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> > Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com]
>
>> Or a common superclass then we can consider if it should hold the ivar list
>>> or a Config object.
>>>
>>> Would it be too weird to have a common super class for BaseObjectPool and
>>> BasePoolableObjectFactory for example?
>>>
>>> Gary G
jectFactory for example?
>>
>> Gary Gregory
>> Senior Software Engineer
>> Rocket Software
>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
>> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
>> Web: seagull.rocketsoft
ail: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:29
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: [pool] Reusi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:29
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [pool] Reusing Config
>
> Hi All:
>
> I think this came up recently. Any thoughts or plans on extracting the Config
> class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool and GenericObjectPool so it can be reuse
Hi All:
I think this came up recently. Any thoughts or plans on extracting the Config
class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool and GenericObjectPool so it can be reused.
The constants for default values could then also be moved to Config.
Gary Gregory
Senior Software Engineer
Rocket Software
3340 Pea
44 matches
Mail list logo
