Peter, Harmeet

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

Will you guys please try to sort your problem out, I have no idea why you are at each others throats on *every* topic, but its getting a bit wearisome. We're not going to get any progress if you can't *both* compromise.

d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: Peter, Harmeet

["Peter M. Goldstein" <pe...@yahoo.com>]

All,

Please ignore this email.  I'll be posting the latest and greatest
version of the Watchdog, including the re-factoring to allow use of
multiple factories shortly.  Noel and I have been working on and testing
it for much of today.

--Peter



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: Peter, Harmeet

["Peter M. Goldstein" <pe...@yahoo.com>]

Noel,

> - I don't believe there will be an improvement with watchdog. I don't
> think
> all of Peter's patch has been posted. Danny you tried the posted patch
and
> it made things worse for you. If the patch did improve
> performance/scalability significantly and I could verify it there
would
> not
> have been as much of an issue. We may be exchanging one set of
problems
> with
> other.

You are wrong.  See Noel's test results.

Attached is the SMTPHandler.java (with the sendMail line commented out)
and SMTPServer.java I've been using.  Also attached are the Watchdog
classes used in our tests over the last few days.  Works like a charm.
Note the single theWatchdogThread.notify() call that was removed from
the dispose method of TimeoutWatchdog.

I've explained over and over why Danny encountered the issue he did.  I
don't see why the point needs to be belabored again.
 
> - I don't think refactoring is needed. There are ways of addressing
> configuration overhead with current structure.

You haven't proposed one.  I gave reasons why your suggestions were
erroneous, and you haven't addressed any of them.

Moreover, as I made clear in my earlier posts, this is not all about
performance.  This is about centralized logging, failure on startup,
etc.  All the things that a server should do.  The changes to the server
are minimal and extremely low impact.
 
> Here is what I would like. Have Peter or Noel put out proposals for
vote.
> 
> Please assume my +1.
> - If there are two +1 (non Peter)committers votes,
> or
> - only one +1(non Peter) and no committer vote for 2 days after a
single
> (non Peter) committer +1.
> 
> I don't know of a more accomodating way to compromise on this. Does
this
> sound reasonable ?

Vote +1 on Noel's proposal, which let's you keep a centralized scheduler
and be done with it.

> Will you guys please try to sort your problem out, I have no idea why
you
> are at each others throats on *every* topic, but its getting a bit
> wearisome. We're not going to get any progress if you can't *both*
> compromise.

A compromise has been offered.  Noel made a compromise suggestion and
I've even offered to implement it.  It's not what I want, and it's not
optimal, but it will allow the code to run in either mode.

He's made a proposal.  If you don't like the fact that he isn't a
committer and made a proposal and called for a VOTE, then take the
proposal as coming from me.  We've wasted more than enough time on this,
and I'm willing to settle on a suboptimal compromise just to be done
with it and move on. 

--Peter   

Re: Peter, Harmeet

[Harmeet Bedi <ha...@kodemuse.com>]

The reason for my concern has been 2 fold.

- I don't believe there will be an improvement with watchdog. I don't think
all of Peter's patch has been posted. Danny you tried the posted patch and
it made things worse for you. If the patch did improve
performance/scalability significantly and I could verify it there would not
have been as much of an issue. We may be exchanging one set of problems with
other.

- I don't think refactoring is needed. There are ways of addressing
configuration overhead with current structure.

Here is what I would like. Have Peter or Noel put out proposals for vote.

Please assume my +1.
- If there are two +1 (non Peter)committers votes,
or
- only one +1(non Peter) and no committer vote for 2 days after a single
(non Peter) committer +1.

I don't know of a more accomodating way to compromise on this. Does this
sound reasonable ?

Harmeet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
To: "James Developers List" <ja...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:22 AM
Subject: Peter, Harmeet


Will you guys please try to sort your problem out, I have no idea why you
are at each others throats on *every* topic, but its getting a bit
wearisome. We're not going to get any progress if you can't *both*
compromise.

d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>