Sorry. I really need to watch that auto-complete. Mark
On 31/10/17 16:45, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 31/10/17 14:44, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 31 October 2017 at 04:21, Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> If the methods are required then that makes 2.4.3 broken in my view. In >>>> which case we should wait for 2.4.4 before updating the version DBCP >>>> depends on. I don't think we should adapt the test. The test is telling >>>> us something is broken. We should fix the root cause not change the test. >>>> >>> >>> Regarding this, if the method names were expected in the output, then a >>> unit test should have existed to verify that. The existing test was only >>> checking for class names, so I'm assuming that's why I made the change a >>> while back to optimize it for that use case. I think I asked on the mailing >>> lists first, but that was a while ago. >>> >> >> It sounds like the missing unit test in [pool] was actually in [dbcp]! :-p >> >> Matt or Mark, would you mind pitching in to fill out this missing test? > > I'll help out when I can but I'm heads down working through the DAEMON > issues at the moment. It is probably going to be a few days before I'm > done there. > > Mark > > >> >> Thank you, >> Gary >> >> >>> >>>> - fix pool >>>> - release pool 2.4.4 >>>> - update DBCP to pool 2.4.4 >>>> - release DBCP >>>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me. This can be done by just removing the SecurityManager >>> version since a StackWalker version of CallStack could be implemented for >>> Java 9, so it would be pointless to fully revert the change. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
