Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Gary Gregory
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:39, "Gary Gregory" wrote: > On Oct 31, 2010, at 8:55, "Phil Steitz" wrote: > >> On 10/30/10 10:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 06:35 To: Commons Developers

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Gary Gregory
On Oct 31, 2010, at 8:55, "Phil Steitz" wrote: > On 10/30/10 10:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz >>> [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 >>> 06:35 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [pool] Pool >>> config vs. factory hiera

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/30/10 10:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 06:35 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies. On 10/30/10 2:30 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: Hi Phil, the

RE: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Gary Gregory
> -Original Message- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 06:35 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies. > > On 10/30/10 2:30 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > the benefits of eliminatin

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/30/10 2:30 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: Hi Phil, the benefits of eliminating the member variables in favor of storing pool config reference are IMHO in therms of code maintainability and keep it as much simple as possible. Maybe I am being dense here, but I don't quite get that. The pool h

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread James Carman
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > > -1 on adding the reconfigure(Config) method, we discussed about adding > it in another thread, so I added to see if there are benefits but I > don't see any advantage. > So, how are you going to change the properties? Through the builder

[Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm

2010-10-30 Thread Gilles Sadowski
Hi. In the class "PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm", why is the check for identical abscissae deferred to the "evaluate" or "computeCoefficients" methods? Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For ad

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi Phil, the benefits of eliminating the member variables in favor of storing pool config reference are IMHO in therms of code maintainability and keep it as much simple as possible. You can see the difference between the current Stack(Keyed)ObjectPool(Factory) - which are implemented according yo

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/30/10 12:56 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 10/29/10 2:41 PM, James Carman wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, sebb wrote: I had overlooked that aspect ... If some changes are more expensive to perform, then the method might want to determine which items have changed, rather than just rec

Re: [pool] Common behavior for BOP and BKOP

2010-10-30 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi Gary, yes, understood and agreed :) Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Oct 30, 2010, at 13:01, "Simone Tripodi" wrote: > >> HiGary, >> I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create a

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-30 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/29/10 2:41 PM, James Carman wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, sebb wrote: I had overlooked that aspect ... If some changes are more expensive to perform, then the method might want to determine which items have changed, rather than just reconfiguring everything. There may be some

Re: [pool] Common behavior for BOP and BKOP

2010-10-30 Thread Gary Gregory
On Oct 30, 2010, at 13:01, "Simone Tripodi" wrote: > HiGary, > I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create abstract > classes for common settings to avoid redundancies, I don't know if it > could make sense. > Have a nice day! I'm just taking it one strop at a time here to avoi

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-proxy-test (in module apache-commons) failed

2010-10-30 Thread Gump
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-scxml-test (in module apache-commons) failed

2010-10-30 Thread Gump
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This

Re: [pool] Common behavior for BOP and BKOP

2010-10-30 Thread Simone Tripodi
HiGary, I agree on your point of view, I wonder if we can even create abstract classes for common settings to avoid redundancies, I don't know if it could make sense. Have a nice day! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Gary Greg