> I think it would
> really be best to resolve the over-synch issues as well if we can do
> it quickly. I will post a separate note on what I have in mind there.
See patch and comment on POOL-108.
Phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=24840&projectId=178
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sun 2 Dec 2007 18:37:58 -0800
Finished at: Sun 2 Dec 2007 18:38:53 -0800
Total time: 54s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number:
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=24840&projectId=178
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sun 2 Dec 2007 18:37:58 -0800
Finished at: Sun 2 Dec 2007 18:38:53 -0800
Total time: 54s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number:
On Dec 2, 2007 2:24 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> >> - fully synchronized borrowObject() and returnObject() methods. I've
> >> seen this to be a serious bottleneck when the database is under high
> >> load and another connection needs to be created.
> >
> > Agreed. Ideas
Phil Steitz wrote:
- fully synchronized borrowObject() and returnObject() methods. I've
seen this to be a serious bottleneck when the database is under high
load and another connection needs to be created.
Agreed. Ideas on how to improve this without creating threadsafety
issues would be appr
Hi Ron,
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 16:28 +0100, RonPiterman wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I would like to apply my runtime annotations "digester" as a new sandbox
> component, and wanted to ask how to get the process rolling,
The commons sandbox is generally for use when people are attempting to
extract some
On Dec 2, 2007 12:15 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to offer some help, too.
Thanks in advance!
> I cannot promise that I can do some actual development work on it, but I
> would like to add some comments about some drawbacks (IMHO) in pool 1.3.
> Mainly:
>
> - changing Ge
On Dec 2, 2007 11:09 AM, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tomcat has been bitten [1] by a bug [2] in pool-1.3. Currently we are
> considering reverting to pool-1.2 but would obviously prefer to move to
> pool-1.4 (that included a fix for [2]) due to the many fixes in 1.3.
>
> A quic
Hi,
I would like to offer some help, too.
I cannot promise that I can do some actual development work on it, but I
would like to add some comments about some drawbacks (IMHO) in pool 1.3.
Mainly:
- changing GenericObjectPool from LIFO to FIFO strategy from 1.2 to 1.3
I think that a FIFO strate
Hi,
Tomcat has been bitten [1] by a bug [2] in pool-1.3. Currently we are
considering reverting to pool-1.2 but would obviously prefer to move to
pool-1.4 (that included a fix for [2]) due to the many fixes in 1.3.
A quick scan of the archives suggests that an offer of an extra pair of
hands migh
1.5+ time!
On Dec 2, 2007 1:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My preference is to keep this release and branch of [lang] as 1.3
> compatible, primarily as part of the purpose of [lang] is to fill in JDK
> holes for old JDKs.
>
> I would then suggest that [lang] switches to Jav
Hallo,
I would like to apply my runtime annotations "digester" as a new sandbox
component, and wanted to ask how to get the process rolling,
Cheers,
Ron
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-
My preference is to keep this release and branch of [lang] as 1.3
compatible, primarily as part of the purpose of [lang] is to fill in JDK
holes for old JDKs.
I would then suggest that [lang] switches to Java 5, in a new package.
Stephen
Henri Yandell wrote:
We've three 1.3 specific compile
13 matches
Mail list logo
