[pool] pool: the future [WAS Re: [pool] synchronization issues in Pool]

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 21:05 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:42 -0400, Sandy McArthur wrote:

<snip>

> > > > While I'm at it would it be desirable to transition to the privately
> > > > head lock idiom
> > > it might (however) stop a user doing something equivalent through
> > > carelessness or naivity. so probably worth doing. would need to add a
> > > note to the documentation since this would change the semantics.
> > > opinions?
> > 
> > I have a number of pending patches: http://tinyurl.com/cauwd that I'd
> > like to see commited or rejected as I'm starting to feel no one cares
> > about them and it's becoming a pain to maintain my own patched pool
> > version. 
> 
> most of the committers listed in the project.xml aren't that active in
> the commons any more :-/
> 
> re: 33264, 36719, 36904, 37153
> 
> these all suffer from issues with backward compatibility. i'd like to
> have a little think and then move the discussion to a new thread.

there are a couple of issues which i needed a bit of time to think
about. 

IMHO these changes will improve pool (though some details need more
discussion) but are not backwards compatible with the existing 1.x
releases. so, if these are applied pool would need to be moved forward
to 2.0. moving to 2.0 open doors for other revisions.

the recent synchronization fixes are important so one more 1.x release
would also be needed.

i created a new branch from trunk (before committing the above patches).
the trunk version is now 2.0-dev. all of these patches (save the
collections one) have now been committed. i've haven't committed the
collections patch since i wonder whether it might be better to break the
dependency entirely.

as always, opinions encouraged :)

a more significant issue is that pool really seems short of an active
development community. there are patches from developers out there and
the existing committers haven't been very active for a while. so,
perhaps all that's needed is an effort to restart active development.

i'm stretched pretty thin already. so, i'd need some help from
developers to kick start pool developmen. this might lead to 1.3 and 2.0
releases. any volunteers interested?

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [pool] pool: the future [WAS Re: [pool] synchronization issues in Pool]

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 12:49 -0400, Sandy McArthur wrote:
> Since you mentioned not breaking backwards compatibility I started
> working on a fresh implementation which I think is coming along very
> well and I intend to contribute back to the commons.

sounds good

moving to 2.0 gives a little more freedom but even so it makes sense to
preserve as much compatibility as possible. 

> I've uploaded JavaDocs of what progress I've made so far. I figure I'm
> about 45% done not including unit tests. See the org.mcarthur.....
> package:
> 
> JavaDocs for only the public interface:
> http://sandy.mcarthur.org/pool/Pool-Protected/
> 
> JavaDocs including private members:
> http://sandy.mcarthur.org/pool/Pool-Private/

since there's substantial code and it's being developed elsewhere
(rather than on list here), they'll be some paperwork required. the
incubator projects acts as the contact point for this kind of thing.
i'll make some enquiries about the process. (the ASF is currently trying
to grow the new processes required to scale. things are a little
chaotic, under-development and under-documented at the moment so
patience may be required.) 

ASF code is used extensively and it's very important that we can
demonstrate it's origins.

> I am interested in becoming a commiter someday.

cool

the ASF can be a bit mysterious (when viewed from the outside) at times.
few rules but lots of social conventions. if you get a minute or two,
browse the foundation sites (http://www.apache.org and
http://www.apache.org/dev) as well as jakarta.

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [pool] pool: the future [WAS Re: [pool] synchronization issues in Pool]

[Sandy McArthur <sa...@gmail.com>]

Since you mentioned not breaking backwards compatibility I started
working on a fresh implementation which I think is coming along very
well and I intend to contribute back to the commons.

I've uploaded JavaDocs of what progress I've made so far. I figure I'm
about 45% done not including unit tests. See the org.mcarthur.....
package:

JavaDocs for only the public interface:
http://sandy.mcarthur.org/pool/Pool-Protected/

JavaDocs including private members:
http://sandy.mcarthur.org/pool/Pool-Private/

I am interested in becoming a commiter someday.

On 10/29/05, robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > re: 33264, 36719, 36904, 37153
> >
> > these all suffer from issues with backward compatibility. i'd like to
> > have a little think and then move the discussion to a new thread.
>
> there are a couple of issues which i needed a bit of time to think
> about.
>
> IMHO these changes will improve pool (though some details need more
> discussion) but are not backwards compatible with the existing 1.x
> releases. so, if these are applied pool would need to be moved forward
> to 2.0. moving to 2.0 open doors for other revisions.
>
> the recent synchronization fixes are important so one more 1.x release
> would also be needed.
>
> i created a new branch from trunk (before committing the above patches).
> the trunk version is now 2.0-dev. all of these patches (save the
> collections one) have now been committed. i've haven't committed the
> collections patch since i wonder whether it might be better to break the
> dependency entirely.
>
> as always, opinions encouraged :)
>
> a more significant issue is that pool really seems short of an active
> development community. there are patches from developers out there and
> the existing committers haven't been very active for a while. so,
> perhaps all that's needed is an effort to restart active development.
>
> i'm stretched pretty thin already. so, i'd need some help from
> developers to kick start pool developmen. this might lead to 1.3 and 2.0
> releases. any volunteers interested?


--
Sandy McArthur

"Government big enough to supply everything you
need is big enough to take everything you have ...
The course of history shows that as a government
grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org