Hello everybody.
I did a microbenchmark comparing a hardcoded synchronization wrapper
with the proposed dynamic proxy-based one (which is very elegant IMHO
and it proves that Java has a surprising amount of meta-programming
facilities in it). The comparison was done on a Map instance using
C
Hi Phil,
thanks a lot, that's the kind of feedback I was waiting for :)
I don't have a single use case to submit to justify why keeping the
synchronization feature, but something suggests me to propose to
maintain it. Since, as you already noticed, we can avoid to maintain
synchronized pool implem
I am +0 for replacing the synchronized pools in PoolUtils with this
approach. The "0" is because the impls are already there and may perform
better (quite possibly not), the "+" because there is less code in the proxy
impl. I am also not 100% convinced that we should be providing these at
all. T
Hi again guys,
just realized that pasted code is not so readable, I just copied it on
pastie[1].
If you don't have any objections, I can start committing that stuff so
you can review it.
Many thanks in advance,
Simo
[1] http://pastie.org/1411379
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www
Hi Phil,
that's the way how I propose to synchronize pools using proxies
without implementing synchronized wrapper classes, if you don't see
issues about it I can start committing it let you all reviewing.
Please let me know, have a nice day!!!
Simo
{{{
public static ObjectPool synchronizedP
Hi Phil,
thanks a lot for feedbacks and for mentoring, much more than appreciated.
I take advantage to wish you all a Merry Christmas, all the best,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 a
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> >>
> >> org.apache.commons.pool2.impl
> >> | generic
> >> | reference
> >> | stack
> >>
>
Hi Phil,
>>
>> org.apache.commons.pool2.impl
>> | generic
>> | reference
>> | stack
>>
>> common stuff could be included directly under impl.
>>
>
> What exactl
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all mates,
> I'd like to propose a small stuff reorganization in the `impl` package
> that is growing up and we could arrange stuff in a cleaner way.
> I propose the following packages:
>
> org.apache.commons.pool2.impl
>
Hi Gary!
In the generic package would go the Generic(Keyed)ObjectPool and
related Configuration/Factory, and agreed, ref sounds better than
reference :)
What does anyone think about it?
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Gary Gr
On Dec 22, 2010, at 9:43, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all mates,
> I'd like to propose a small stuff reorganization in the `impl` package
> that is growing up and we could arrange stuff in a cleaner way.
> I propose the following packages:
>
> org.apache.commons.pool2.impl
>
What goes in the generic package?
Gary
On Dec 22, 2010, at 9:43, "Simone Tripodi" wrote:
> Hi all mates,
> I'd like to propose a small stuff reorganization in the `impl` package
> that is growing up and we could arrange stuff in a cleaner way.
> I propose the following packages:
>
> org.apache
Hi all mates,
I'd like to propose a small stuff reorganization in the `impl` package
that is growing up and we could arrange stuff in a cleaner way.
I propose the following packages:
org.apache.commons.pool2.impl
| generic
13 matches
Mail list logo
