You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> on 2011/05/05 17:54:27 UTC
[POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Hi all guys,
some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
release?
It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
we can start playing with it.
Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/5/11 8:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
> release?
> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
> we can start playing with it.
> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
-1
Once we release something with the new package name, we are locking
the API. We have also not performance tested or integrated the new
pool with DBCP. I have not even personally finished reviewing all
of the changes in the API to introduce generics. It is too early to
cut a pool 2 release, IMO.
Phil
> Have a nice day,
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
looks like I've been causing too much flares! :D
I understand your concerns, anyway, as in the subject, I just proposed
a *2.0-beta1* release, as a first - of many, maybe - intermediate step
before pushing the 2.0.
We could even downgrade it to alpha1, and warning users that APIs can
appears/disappear without any warning.
At the end of the day I don't want to hurry anybody, my intention was
just a proposal! :)
Have a nice day!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/11 10:12 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>>>
>>>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>>>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change
>>> deprecated
>>>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
>>> Why such a rush to just get generics?
>>>
>> It's been forever and I'm tired of looking type casts and other hacks. Why
>> NOT is the better question. It's there, it's done, let's take a look at it.
>> Thank you Simone BTW.
>>
>>
>>> Honestly, this makes no sense
>>> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
>>> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects.
>>
>> It makes a lot of sense to me to bullet proof pool call sites using
>> generics.
>>
>> It makes even more sense to me to do it with a small step instead of a big
>> one using a next gen pool release that may break apps in subtle ways.
>>
>> I have some subclassing/wrapping/hacking/blech already. It seems like you're
>> suggesting that folks go off and create throw away work . That does not sit
>> well with me when I know that enabling generics on top on 1.5 is done and it
>> ready for review. It's easy and makes your life easier.
>>
>>
>>> If we make this
>>> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
>>> going to be *the* API for several years to come.
>>
>> But so what? It'll be supported as long as folks like us volunteer to do it
>> for any given release.
>
> That's the problem. We have frankly collectively had a terrible
> track record keeping up with pool and dbcp bugs. I take
> accountability for that since I have been cutting the releases.
> These components are widely reused and prone to difficult bugs and
> small changes can lead to disasters for production systems. I don't
> personally have the bandwidth to birth and maintain yet another
> version of [pool] and there has not been sufficient help available
> resolving the real bugs in prior releases to make it a wise decision
> for the Commons PMC to release another version at this time. What
> I can volunteer to help with is developing a 2.0 version that we can
> stand behind. We don't have that yet.
>
>> I say: Here is 2.0 (or 1.6 if we want to call it
>> that): It's 1.5 with generics, enjoy! :) Next up, for 2.0/3.0, we're doing
>> this and that, which are bigger changes with more serious implications. Keep
>> the ball moving I say. Why wait for Big Bang releases?
>>
>>
> Because we have made incompatible changes in the API. That can only
> happen in major releases. These need to be planned and executed
> carefully. Once we fix the 2.0 API, we can move quiclky through
> 2.1, 2.2, etc., as long as we have volunteers to help develop and
> maintain the code. Major releases take more time to get right.
> That is natural and we have learned - repeatedly - that rushing to
> push a major release out before the API is ready is a bad idea for
> both us and users.
>
>>> We may also be
>>> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
>>> features in the current API.
>>>
>> We won't know that until we really get
>>> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
>>>
>> OK, we may... or we may not. I have no idea. I'm a DBCP user too but I don't
>> want to wait for some complex release train (a la Eclipse).
>
> I am also a DBCP user and the last thing I want is a release that
> kills performance and/or introduces nasty bugs - both of which can
> be / have been the product of bad [pool] releases.
>
> Phil
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>> - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other
>>> clean
>>>> ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and
>>> so
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <
>>> simonetripodi@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>>> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
>>>>> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
>>>>> release?
>>>>> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
>>>>> we can start playing with it.
>>>>> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>> Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/5/11 10:12 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>>
>>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change
>> deprecated
>>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
>> Why such a rush to just get generics?
>>
> It's been forever and I'm tired of looking type casts and other hacks. Why
> NOT is the better question. It's there, it's done, let's take a look at it.
> Thank you Simone BTW.
>
>
>> Honestly, this makes no sense
>> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
>> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects.
>
> It makes a lot of sense to me to bullet proof pool call sites using
> generics.
>
> It makes even more sense to me to do it with a small step instead of a big
> one using a next gen pool release that may break apps in subtle ways.
>
> I have some subclassing/wrapping/hacking/blech already. It seems like you're
> suggesting that folks go off and create throw away work . That does not sit
> well with me when I know that enabling generics on top on 1.5 is done and it
> ready for review. It's easy and makes your life easier.
>
>
>> If we make this
>> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
>> going to be *the* API for several years to come.
>
> But so what? It'll be supported as long as folks like us volunteer to do it
> for any given release.
That's the problem. We have frankly collectively had a terrible
track record keeping up with pool and dbcp bugs. I take
accountability for that since I have been cutting the releases.
These components are widely reused and prone to difficult bugs and
small changes can lead to disasters for production systems. I don't
personally have the bandwidth to birth and maintain yet another
version of [pool] and there has not been sufficient help available
resolving the real bugs in prior releases to make it a wise decision
for the Commons PMC to release another version at this time. What
I can volunteer to help with is developing a 2.0 version that we can
stand behind. We don't have that yet.
> I say: Here is 2.0 (or 1.6 if we want to call it
> that): It's 1.5 with generics, enjoy! :) Next up, for 2.0/3.0, we're doing
> this and that, which are bigger changes with more serious implications. Keep
> the ball moving I say. Why wait for Big Bang releases?
>
>
Because we have made incompatible changes in the API. That can only
happen in major releases. These need to be planned and executed
carefully. Once we fix the 2.0 API, we can move quiclky through
2.1, 2.2, etc., as long as we have volunteers to help develop and
maintain the code. Major releases take more time to get right.
That is natural and we have learned - repeatedly - that rushing to
push a major release out before the API is ready is a bad idea for
both us and users.
>> We may also be
>> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
>> features in the current API.
>>
> We won't know that until we really get
>> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
>>
> OK, we may... or we may not. I have no idea. I'm a DBCP user too but I don't
> want to wait for some complex release train (a la Eclipse).
I am also a DBCP user and the last thing I want is a release that
kills performance and/or introduces nasty bugs - both of which can
be / have been the product of bad [pool] releases.
Phil
> Gary
>
>
>> Phil
>>
>>> - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other
>> clean
>>> ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and
>> so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <
>> simonetripodi@apache.org>wrote:
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
>>>> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
>>>> release?
>>>> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
>>>> we can start playing with it.
>>>> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
> >
> > - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
> > nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change
> deprecated
> > documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
> Why such a rush to just get generics?
>
It's been forever and I'm tired of looking type casts and other hacks. Why
NOT is the better question. It's there, it's done, let's take a look at it.
Thank you Simone BTW.
> Honestly, this makes no sense
> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects.
It makes a lot of sense to me to bullet proof pool call sites using
generics.
It makes even more sense to me to do it with a small step instead of a big
one using a next gen pool release that may break apps in subtle ways.
I have some subclassing/wrapping/hacking/blech already. It seems like you're
suggesting that folks go off and create throw away work . That does not sit
well with me when I know that enabling generics on top on 1.5 is done and it
ready for review. It's easy and makes your life easier.
> If we make this
> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
> going to be *the* API for several years to come.
But so what? It'll be supported as long as folks like us volunteer to do it
for any given release. I say: Here is 2.0 (or 1.6 if we want to call it
that): It's 1.5 with generics, enjoy! :) Next up, for 2.0/3.0, we're doing
this and that, which are bigger changes with more serious implications. Keep
the ball moving I say. Why wait for Big Bang releases?
> We may also be
> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
> features in the current API.
>
We won't know that until we really get
> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
>
OK, we may... or we may not. I have no idea. I'm a DBCP user too but I don't
want to wait for some complex release train (a la Eclipse).
Gary
> Phil
>
> > - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other
> clean
> > ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and
> so
> > on.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <
> simonetripodi@apache.org>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all guys,
> >> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
> >> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
> >> release?
> >> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
> >> we can start playing with it.
> >> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
> >> Have a nice day,
> >> Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Thank you,
Gary
http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Mark,
I'm not j.u.c guru but if you're pleased to share your thoughts, I
would be glad to provide at least feedbacks.
Looking forward to see j.u.c. in action in pool, thanks for taking care of it!
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 19:08, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Re performance, don't forget to add something that skips the synch
>> in createDataSource - i.e., use a PoolingDataSource directly to
>> avoid the thread lineup on getConnection due to that internal synch.
>
> Just tested that locally. It doesn't help that much. The bottleneck is
> in the pooling allocate() code. I going to start looking at that today.
> Not sure how long it is going to take for me to replace it with
> something based on java.util.concurrent
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 05/05/2011 19:08, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Re performance, don't forget to add something that skips the synch
> in createDataSource - i.e., use a PoolingDataSource directly to
> avoid the thread lineup on getConnection due to that internal synch.
Just tested that locally. It doesn't help that much. The bottleneck is
in the pooling allocate() code. I going to start looking at that today.
Not sure how long it is going to take for me to replace it with
something based on java.util.concurrent
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/5/11 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 18:21, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 5/5/11 9:42 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2011 17:33, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>>>>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
>>>>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
>>>> Why such a rush to just get generics? Honestly, this makes no sense
>>>> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
>>>> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects. If we make this
>>>> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
>>>> going to be *the* API for several years to come. We may also be
>>>> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
>>>> features in the current API. We won't know that until we really get
>>>> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
>>> +1. The good news is that I now have some time to work on this.
>> Great!
>>> The first task will be updating dbcp/trunk to build against pool/trunk.
>> +1 - but lets try to minimize the changes for now to those necessary
>> to get the build to work (i.e., hold off on internally
>> "genericising" DBCP). This will make it easier to port bug fixes.
> OK. I've already added the @Override markers but that shouldn't cause
> too much pain. I'll hold off the generics changes for now and focus on
> pool2 performance.
>
>>> I suspect we are going to need at least a snapshot build of pool/trunk
>>> to keep the Maven deps happy.
>> I wonder if it would be just as easy to just move to using Ant for
>> this phase of dbcp development and either build a pool jar or just
>> pull in the required pool sources? I would personally be fine with
>> that approach.
> My own plan (which is working already) is have the Tomcat DBCP/jdbc-pool
> performance tests as one Eclipse project which in turn depends on an
> Eclipse project for dbcp2 which in turn depends on an Eclipse project
> for pool2. I don't actually care right now that both the Ant and Maven
> builds for DBCP are broken. Others (and the CI systems) might ;)
>
> One option (that might also work for Gary) is to start producing
> snapshot builds of pool2.
Re performance, don't forget to add something that skips the synch
in createDataSource - i.e., use a PoolingDataSource directly to
avoid the thread lineup on getConnection due to that internal synch.
Phil
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 05/05/2011 18:21, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 5/5/11 9:42 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 05/05/2011 17:33, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>>>
>>>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>>>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
>>>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
>>> Why such a rush to just get generics? Honestly, this makes no sense
>>> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
>>> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects. If we make this
>>> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
>>> going to be *the* API for several years to come. We may also be
>>> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
>>> features in the current API. We won't know that until we really get
>>> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
>> +1. The good news is that I now have some time to work on this.
> Great!
>> The first task will be updating dbcp/trunk to build against pool/trunk.
> +1 - but lets try to minimize the changes for now to those necessary
> to get the build to work (i.e., hold off on internally
> "genericising" DBCP). This will make it easier to port bug fixes.
OK. I've already added the @Override markers but that shouldn't cause
too much pain. I'll hold off the generics changes for now and focus on
pool2 performance.
>> I suspect we are going to need at least a snapshot build of pool/trunk
>> to keep the Maven deps happy.
> I wonder if it would be just as easy to just move to using Ant for
> this phase of dbcp development and either build a pool jar or just
> pull in the required pool sources? I would personally be fine with
> that approach.
My own plan (which is working already) is have the Tomcat DBCP/jdbc-pool
performance tests as one Eclipse project which in turn depends on an
Eclipse project for dbcp2 which in turn depends on an Eclipse project
for pool2. I don't actually care right now that both the Ant and Maven
builds for DBCP are broken. Others (and the CI systems) might ;)
One option (that might also work for Gary) is to start producing
snapshot builds of pool2.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/5/11 9:42 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 17:33, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>>
>>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
>>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
>> Why such a rush to just get generics? Honestly, this makes no sense
>> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
>> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects. If we make this
>> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
>> going to be *the* API for several years to come. We may also be
>> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
>> features in the current API. We won't know that until we really get
>> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
> +1. The good news is that I now have some time to work on this.
Great!
> The first task will be updating dbcp/trunk to build against pool/trunk.
+1 - but lets try to minimize the changes for now to those necessary
to get the build to work (i.e., hold off on internally
"genericising" DBCP). This will make it easier to port bug fixes.
> I suspect we are going to need at least a snapshot build of pool/trunk
> to keep the Maven deps happy.
I wonder if it would be just as easy to just move to using Ant for
this phase of dbcp development and either build a pool jar or just
pull in the required pool sources? I would personally be fine with
that approach.
Phil
> Mark
>> Phil
>>
>>> - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other clean
>>> ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
>>>> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
>>>> release?
>>>> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
>>>> we can start playing with it.
>>>> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 05/05/2011 17:33, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>>
>> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
>> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
>> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
> Why such a rush to just get generics? Honestly, this makes no sense
> to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
> wrap the methods that borrow and return objects. If we make this
> decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
> going to be *the* API for several years to come. We may also be
> painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
> features in the current API. We won't know that until we really get
> the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
+1. The good news is that I now have some time to work on this.
The first task will be updating dbcp/trunk to build against pool/trunk.
I suspect we are going to need at least a snapshot build of pool/trunk
to keep the Maven deps happy.
Mark
>
> Phil
>
>> - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other clean
>> ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and so
>> on.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
>>> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
>>> release?
>>> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
>>> we can start playing with it.
>>> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
>>> Have a nice day,
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/5/11 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
>
> - Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
> nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
> documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
Why such a rush to just get generics? Honestly, this makes no sense
to me. If you really want a type-safe pool, it is easy enough to
wrap the methods that borrow and return objects. If we make this
decision, we are effectively deciding that the current pool API is
going to be *the* API for several years to come. We may also be
painting ourselves into a performance corner supporting all of the
features in the current API. We won't know that until we really get
the DBCP integration and performance testing done.
Phil
> - Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other clean
> ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and so
> on.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys,
>> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
>> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
>> release?
>> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
>> we can start playing with it.
>> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
>> Have a nice day,
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [POOL2][PROPOSAL] releasing commons-pool2-2.0-beta1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I would like to propose an aggressive release schedule:
- Push 2.0 out as a generified version of 1.5 ASAP and add/remove/fiddle
nothing else. "Just give me the generics P L E A S E!" :) Change deprecated
documentation from "Will be removed in 2.0" to "Will be removed in 3.0".
- Next is 3.0: This is what we had meant 2.0 to be. Do all the other clean
ups, re-architecting, fiddling, removing of deprecation, refactoring, and so
on.
Gary
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> some of us (me included :P) are waiting for pool with generics; now
> that the migration has been done, WDYT about releasing a beta1
> release?
> It is basically the latest pool-1.5.X API, but with generics, at least
> we can start playing with it.
> Thoughts? Just let me know, I can take care of it!
> Have a nice day,
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Thank you,
Gary
http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory