Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.11.0 based on RC1

+1 Tested on open jdk 21.0.7, Ubuntu 24.10. Build, reports, tests, sigs, release notes, backward compat all good. One ridiculously minor nit: in the release notes, it says Have fun! -Apache Commons BCEL team This comes from /changes/release-notes.vm. Not worth re-rolling, IMO, but should prob

Re: [pool][all] Fixing deprecations in unit tests

> On May 24, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Sat, May 24, 2025, 20:22 Phil Steitz wrote: > >> The [pool] unit tests in the 2_X branch are riddled with deprecation >> warnings mostly due to either changed method names or legacy time-related >> me

[pool][all] Fixing deprecations in unit tests

The [pool] unit tests in the 2_X branch are riddled with deprecation warnings mostly due to either changed method names or legacy time-related methods where the non-deprecated version takes a Duration instead of a long. I am on the fence as to whether to fix these now or wait until the deprecated

[pool] addObject contract

The javadoc suggests that for both GKOP and GOP, this method is a no-op if there is no capacity to add to the pool when it is invoked. But at least for GOP, since the method calls create and create can wait up to the configured borrow wait time for capacity to be available. When fixing POOL-420,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Imaging 1.0.0-alpha6 based on RC1

+1 to release Checked build on openjdk 21.0.6, maven 3.9.3, ubuntu 24.10. Verified sigs and hashes Checked release notes, changelog, reports. Looks good. Phil On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 8:42 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > We have fixed a few bugs and added enhancements since Apache Commons > Imaging 1

[pool] Porting fix for POOL-418 to GKOP

As usual, when GOP has a bug, GKOP has an analogous problem. It looks to me like the wait time computation problem in POOL-418 also applies to GKOP. Should I reopen POOL-418 (which has a released fix) or create a new issue for GKOP? Nice job on the GOP fix, @Gary Gregory I will port the fix if

Re: [DRAFT] June Report to the Board

eople don't want to create a GitHub account, so it's Jira and diff > > files for them, but that's rare. BUT it gives us a LOT MORE work to > > validate a patch compared to GitHub CI where it can use many OSs and Java > > version while I'm sleeping :-) > > &g

Re: [apache/commons-lang] Reimplement RandomStringUtils on top of SecureRandom#getInstanceStrong() (PR #1235)

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 4:13 PM Fabrice Benhamouda wrote: > Thanks @psteitz ! I am not sure where is the > best place to post the following comment. If you think it’s more > appropriate to post it to the mailing list, let me know and I will post it > there. > > To add

Re: [DRAFT] June Report to the Board

" It's just hard to find when to ask for a switch. Especially > when GH has a nice UI to make comments _about code_. Over at Log4j, we > now use GitHub issues instead of Jira, furthering the split... > > Gary > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:38 PM Phil Steitz > w

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Collections 4.5.0-M2 based on RC1

+1 Build, sigs, notes, all look good to me. Tested on apache-maven-3.9.3 Java version: 17.0.11, vendor: Ubuntu, runtime: /usr/lib/jvm/java-17-openjdk-amd64 OS name: "linux", version: "5.15.0-107-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix" Some non-blocker comments: 0) There are quite a few javadoc

Re: [DRAFT] June Report to the Board

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:58 AM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > On 2024/06/12 17:17:24 Phil Steitz wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:27 AM sebb wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 14:45, Gary D. Gregory > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello All, &g

Re: [DRAFT] June Report to the Board

Thanks, Gary Phil On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:37 AM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > I've edited the sections commented on as: > > ## Project Activity: > Many releases of our components: > CONFIGURATION-2.11.0 was released on 2024-06-10. > NET-3.11.1 was released on 2024-06-10. > PARENT-71 w

Re: [COLLECTIONS] documentation question

On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 8:19 AM Claude Warren wrote: > Greetings, > > I see that we support xml documents for documentation but does anyone know > if markdown is supported? I have a number of markdown based documents that > would work well for the Bloom filter documentation, but translating to X

Re: [DRAFT] June Report to the Board

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:27 AM sebb wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 14:45, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > > > > Hello All, > > > > Here is the draft of our board report for June I plan on submitting in a > day or so, feedback is welcome. > > > > ## Description: > > The mission of Apache Commons is th

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Net 3.11.1 based on RC1

+1 Modulo comment above on findbugs, all looks good. Tested full site build, reports, sigs, on Apache Maven 3.9.3 Java version: 17.0.11, openjdk OS name: "linux", version: "5.15.0-107-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix" Compiled and ran tests on Java version: 19.0.2, vendor: Private Build, run

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Net 3.11.1 based on RC1

There are a bunch of findbugs errors reported. Is this expected? Phil On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 5:40 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > We have fixed a few bugs and added enhancements since Apache Commons > Net 3.11.0 was released, so I would like to release Apache Commons Net > 3.11.1. > > Apache Commons

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.11.0 based on RC1

+1 Build, site, reports, api compatibility, release notes, sigs all OK There were a bunch of javadoc warnings for missing javadoc, but not a blocker for release. Tested on Apache Maven 3.9.3 Java version: 17.0.11, openjdk OS name: "linux", version: "5.15.0-107-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "uni

Re: [pool] Resilience against factory outages (POOL-407)

res, run: > > mvn clean site -Dcommons.jacoco.haltOnFailure=false > > I'll update the readme... > > TY, > Gary > > On 2024/05/31 20:12:09 Phil Steitz wrote: > > The build worked locally for me fine. I could not get the site to build. > > Is there som

Re: [pool] Resilience against factory outages (POOL-407)

wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Thank you for the note. I'll try to take a look soon. > > The new code causes the build to fail as it looks like not all of it is > covered by unit tests. > > Gary > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:29 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > >

[pool] Resilience against factory outages (POOL-407)

I just committed a first attempt at providing the above, intended as a fix for POOL-407 and a lot of similar issues reported over the years. The scenario in POOL-407 is common when resource providers (like databases) go down: 1. makeObject requests start to fail and threads line up waiting on th

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Validator 1.9.0 based on RC1

[+1] Checked build, sigs, reports, notes. All look good. Tested on Apache Maven 3.9.3 Java version: 17.0.10, java-17-openjdk-amd64 OS name: "linux", version: "5.15.0-107-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix" Phil On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 2:12 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > We have fixed a few bugs

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons DBCP 2.12.0 based on RC1

+1 Checked build, tests, built jar, reports, release notes. All look good. Checked build on Maven 3.9.3 openjdk version "17.0.10" 2024-01-16 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 17.0.10+7-Ubuntu-120.04.1) Phil On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:48 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > We have fixed a few

Re: [pool] Recovering from transient factory outages

//rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> &g

Re: [pool] Recovering from transient factory outages

t; @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < >

Re: [dbcp] Force close connections on fatal SQL Exceptions

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:03 PM Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Phil Steitz wrote on 13. Feb 2024 20:46 (GMT +01:00): > > Thanks, Gary. I agree with everything below. I think it's best to just > > leave things as they are. > > If it’s plugable the project might not have to c

[pool] Recovering from transient factory outages

POOL-407 tracks a basic liveness problem that we have never been able to solve: A factory "goes down" resulting in either failed object creation or failed validation during the outage. The pool has capacity to create, but the factory fails to serve threads as they arrive, so they end up parked wa

Re: [dbcp] Force close connections on fatal SQL Exceptions

e server POV > but the driver throws exception X because for whatever reason, is > reusable, but we throw it away. > > HTH, > Gary > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:42 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > In DBCP-595, a change is suggested to force close connections when a &

Re: [DBCP] Support request boundaries

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:35 AM Phil Steitz wrote: > To make it easier to follow and find later, let's move the discussion > started in [1], [2] here. > > The request made in the Jira [1] and implemented in the PR [2] to send > beginRequest and endRequest messages to driv

[dbcp] Force close connections on fatal SQL Exceptions

In DBCP-595, a change is suggested to force close connections when a fatal SQL exception has occurred. As of Version 2.2 of DBCP, fatal exceptions are tracked and the fastFailValidation property can be set to fast fail validations when a fatal exception has occurred on a connection. This change w

[DBCP] Support request boundaries

To make it easier to follow and find later, let's move the discussion started in [1], [2] here. The request made in the Jira [1] and implemented in the PR [2] to send beginRequest and endRequest messages to drivers seems reasonable to me, but just implementing unilaterally by default is probably

Re: [ALL] Standardise Maven defaultGoal in components?

What exactly is the point of the default goal? I mean when is it expected to be used? Automations? Pipes of some kind? It’s not always executed, right? So if I say “clean” was the default, “mvn test” would not mean “mvn clean test”, right? Phil > On Oct 8, 2023, at 7:11 AM, sebb wrote:

Re: [all] stopping dependabot and security analyses on dormant components

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 1:42 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > > Le 03/10/2023 à 20:18, Bruno Kinoshita a écrit : > > Same for me, I prefer to know ahead of time if there are any issues with > > dependencies. > > But the Commons components are mostly dependency-less, we are flooded by > dependabot request

Re: [ALL] pom.xml should not contain RM details

e provided on the command line? I detest settings.xml, btw. Not under source control, throw-back to the old special local voodoo build days. Phil > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 02:33, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > +1 but why then are those properties there? > > > > Phil &g

Re: [ALL] pom.xml should not contain RM details

+1 but why then are those properties there? Phil > On Oct 2, 2023, at 3:58 PM, sebb wrote: > > As the subject says, please do not use the pom to store RM details such as > > commons.releaseManagerName > commons.releaseManagerKey > > These properties are personal to the user, and should be de

Re: [site] [all] broken links

Thanks, Seb. Where, btw, do the commit diffs for the site go? Phil On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 6:09 AM sebb wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 13:32, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > Thanks, Sebb. Strange that some of the links work but not others. > > The relative links we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Net 3.10.0 based on RC1

Looks good to me. I tested source tarball build with Linux #93~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 6 16:15:40 UTC 2023 x86_64 openjdk version "1.8.0_382" OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_382-8u382-ga-1~20.04.1-b05) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.382-b05, mixed mode) and openjdk version "17.0.8

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0

-pool2 2.12.0 Thanks in advance for bug reports, suggestions for improvement, patches or other contributions to the Apache Commons community. Phil Steitz -Apache Commons Team

Re: [site] [all] broken links

a bit later. >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:41, sebb wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks like the site-relative links in >>>> https://github.com/apache/commons-parent/blob/master/src/site/site.xml >>>> are not working. >>>> &

[site] [all] broken links

I am not sure what is causing this, but somehow the links generated for component sites with the current parent and plugins are messed up in the General Information section (which appears on some sites and not others). In verifying the updated [pool] site, I see that for some reason the links for "

[VOTE] [RESULT] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC5

This vote has passed with binding +1 votes from Bruno Kinoshita Gary Gregory Rob Tompkins Phil Steitz and no other votes. Thanks to all who reviewed the release candidate. Phil On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some signific

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons IO 2.14.0 based on RC1

After carefully reviewing the Spotbugs report, I am going to change my vote to +1 Most of the complaints are about returning references vs copies of things in getters. The SA_LOCAL_SELF_COMPARISON complaint looks legit, but probably harmless because it appears to have been there for a long time.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons IO 2.14.0 based on RC1

Build from unpacked source distro works fine under Linux 5.15.0-83-generic #92~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 21 14:00:49 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Apache Maven 3.9.3 (21122926829f1ead511c958d89bd2f672198ae9f) openjdk version "17.0.8.1" 2023-08-24 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 17.0.8.1+1-U

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC5

Here is my +1, based on testing in the VOTE mail. Phil On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant enhancements > since Apache Commons Pool 2.11.1 was released, so I would like to release > Apache Commons Po

[VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC5

Release these artifacts [ ] +0 OK, but... [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... Thanks! Phil Steitz, Release Manager (using key 4E2DDD47E19863BB87211544CD3038FEF07D567E) The following is intended as a helper and refresher for re

Re: [commons-pool] annotated tag commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 updated (ed218a61 -> 2abd33d4)

But then looking at git itself, I don't see any mod to the old tag and the new one looks OK. Phil On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 2:47 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > This does not look good. I was following instructions in [1]. I just did > git tag -s commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 -m "Tag Comm

Re: [commons-pool] annotated tag commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 updated (ed218a61 -> 2abd33d4)

c2 > in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-pool.git > > > *** WARNING: tag commons-pool2-2.12.0-rc2 was modified! *** > > from ed218a61 (commit) > to 2abd33d4 (tag) > tagging ed218a61eaf2753dcd7aafbf050558b0a3550768 (commit) > replaces rel/commons-pool-

Re: [pool] RC time

e.html>"* > > > > > > Eric Bresie > > ebre...@gmail.com > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 7:32 PM Gilles Sadowski > > wrote: > > > > > Le sam. 16 sept. 2023 à 23:54, Phil Steitz a > > > écrit : > > > > &g

[pool] RC time

It has been quite a few years since I cut a Commons release, but I would like to step up for pool 2.12. I think the code in the 2_X branch is ready. All of my soak tests and tests with my own apps and dbcp passed. I am sure a lot has changed since I last did this. Is there a checklist or instru

Re: [pool] 2.12.0 update

he update, no need to apologize :-) > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 6:31 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or > > convince myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the > delay > > > &

Re: [pool] 2.12.0 update

t;> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz wrote: >> >> OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 changes, we >> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the >> keylock. I think I also finally definitively f

Re: [pool] 2.12.0 update

thods, but drop the new "Duration" ones and remove deprecations for the ones they replace. I can see the argument that it is better to tell users now, but that takes away flexibility in 3.0 and makes the API look very confusing with so many methods that do the same thing. Any objections

[pool] 2.12.0 update

I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now in the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good news is it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and earlier versions. I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and if it turns

Re: [pool] Another source compatibility break in 2.x

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:17 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:27 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > We have a minor source compat break still in 2.x > > > > The change to have BaseGenericObjectPool implement Autocloseable forced > > add

[pool] Another source compatibility break in 2.x

We have a minor source compat break still in 2.x The change to have BaseGenericObjectPool implement Autocloseable forced addition of an abstract close method. Technically, that could break subclass implementations that don't implement close. I see three options here. Maybe someone else has a be

Re: [commons-pool] branch POOL_2_X updated: Add Duration named APIs and deprecate old APIs.

of our methods return a Duration and others an Instant, so there, I > think the type in the method name makes sense. Then, for a bit of symmetry, > it's nice if the setter and getter names are the same (minus the set/get > prefix obv). > > Gary > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023

Re: [Pool] Toward version 2.12.0 and 3.0

ease and the perfect and expected time to bump Java > versions IMO. > > Gary > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 17:21 Alex Herbert wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 19:38, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > > > OK, that sounds good. > > > > > >

[pool] advertising unchecked exceptions

I am going through now and comparing diffs of 2.11.1 and head of 2.x to make sure that me and sed did not do anything wrong and I am seeing a bunch of things like this: -void addObject() throws Exception, IllegalStateException, -UnsupportedOperationException; +void addObject()

Re: [Pool] Toward version 2.12.0 and 3.0

9:32 Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Great, thanks for the update :-) > > > > Gary > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> I am doing soak tests now on the 2,x branch code and with DBCP. > >> > >&g

Re: [Pool] Toward version 2.12.0 and 3.0

JMX support for 3.0? > > Just curious, > Gary > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:32 Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Great, thanks for the update :-) > > > > Gary > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 19:11 Phil Steitz wrote: > > > >> +1 > &

Re: [commons-pool] branch POOL_2_X updated: Add Duration named APIs and deprecate old APIs.

ethods removed locally and will push in a > day or two. > > What remains: > - do we want to keep the JMX code? > - should 3.0 use Java 11 or 17? > > Gary > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023, 16:41 Phil Steitz wrote: > > > Why exactly do we need to s/Time/Duration in all of t

Re: [commons-pool] branch POOL_2_X updated: Add Duration named APIs and deprecate old APIs.

Why exactly do we need to s/Time/Duration in all of the method names? Duration is a measure of time. I don't get why this is necessary and it will force people to change (eventually). I was +1 to get rid of the "millis" in the names, but this change seems needless to me. Also, there are still qu

Re: [Pool] Toward version 2.12.0 and 3.0

ceptions and API changes. > > Gary > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:01 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > >

Re: [pool] Creating the 2.x branch

> guarantees that neither branch will miss any fix. Thanks, Gary. I will take that approach. Phil > > Gary > > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 14:29 Phil Steitz wrote: >> >> I think the code in master is close to releasable modulo the breaking >> change th

[pool] Creating the 2.x branch

I think the code in master is close to releasable modulo the breaking change that we have agreed should move to 3.x. The clean way to proceed on the 2.x branch would be to go back to the commit that introduced the new exception type parameter, cut the branch from there and then port all of the sub

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

I think I may have figured this out. I reopened and added a comment to POOL-411. Phil On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > I guess it's good news that CI hit the error below when reviewing the PR > that I had prepared for the POOL-391 fixes. I only sa

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

I guess it's good news that CI hit the error below when reviewing the PR that I had prepared for the POOL-391 fixes. I only saw it once in many test runs and only on OpenJDK 20.0.1. Looks like CI is running 17 on azure-linux. I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with the changes in the PR, pa

Re: [Pool] Toward version 2.12.0 and 3.0

+1 Phil On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a switch from the 2.12.0 vote mail thread in order to discuss 3.0 > and 2.x releases. > > I propose we switch master to 3.0 and create a branch called 2.x based and > an old commit and release 2.12.0 from there. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:08 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Gary Gregory > > wrote: > > > > > Great presentation in the video Elliotte. Thanks for sharing the link. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > Great presentation in the video Elliotte. Thanks for sharing the link. > +1 many thanks. Now back to our hero. Let me pretend to be one of the people in the audience of the video. We have this library that is used by all kinds of "program

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

the flaws you seem to think are > there. WRT to source changes, I welcome cleaning up my call sites! The problem is you are asking *many* users to be welcoming of this task, which I do not think should happen in a minor release. The > debate is valid and I hope we have interesting replies to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

them? Please let's get some input from downstream users before surprising them with this. Phil On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:55 PM Phil Steitz wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:43 PM Gary Gregory > wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> YW and thank you fo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

ble (IOW, > post-release). > > For the other items, I will try and reproduce. My tests builds were ok on > Windows 10 and macOS latest with Java 8. Maybe by hardware is too slow or > too fast compared to yours, hard to say. > > Gary > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 16:53 Phil

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.12.0 based on RC1

Hi Gary, First, thanks for doing this. There are a lot of good fixes in here. I checked the build, sigs et al on a couple of platforms and did not find anything major except one item. I will start with the show-stopper (IMO) and then the other smaller things. 1. I get compilation failure when

Re: can we get rid of dependabot?

ter out those mails (which I did since no one at the time supported that they be diverted to another ML). Did anything change since then? [Or do we eventually question the general anomaly that code discussions have been almost completely off-loaded to GH?] Gilles Am 28.12.2021 um 19:20 schrieb

can we get rid of dependabot?

I can no longer effectively monitor commits@ due to the spam generated by this tool.  I am afraid my eyeballs aren't the only ones going missing here and that is a problem much more severe than any value provided by this tool, IMO. Phil

Re: [pool] BalancedKeyedObjectPool

expect to throw NSEE. Phil Gary On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 2:29 PM Phil Steitz wrote: Recently I had a the following need, which I have seen on the user list a few times over the years. I have a list of resource provider instances that I want to maintain pools of connections to and I want to load

Re: [pool] GenericKeyedObjectPool liveness

care about optimizing across pools. Phil TY! Gary On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 1:29 PM Phil Steitz wrote: Looking at POOL-350, I realized that we don't really have a coherent strategy for handling liveness issues in GKOP. We have been playing whack-a-mole with problems resulting from two

[pool] BalancedKeyedObjectPool

Recently I had a the following need, which I have seen on the user list a few times over the years. I have a list of resource provider instances that I want to maintain pools of connections to and I want to load balance connection requests across the pools.  I can back this using GKOP, but loa

Re: [STATISTICS] Distribution support is connect

On 11/14/21 2:29 AM, Alex Herbert wrote: Both the discrete and continuous distribution have a property in the interface: /** * Indicates whether the support is connected, i.e. whether * all values between the lower and upper bound of the support * are included in the su

[pool] GenericKeyedObjectPool liveness

Looking at POOL-350, I realized that we don't really have a coherent strategy for handling liveness issues in GKOP.  We have been playing whack-a-mole with problems resulting from two facts about how GKOP works: 1. There are two capacity constraints that bind on individual keyed pools at dif

Re: [compress] Dealing with uncaught RuntimeExceptions (again)

On 6/29/21 8:08 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2021-06-29, Miguel Munoz wrote: Catching all RuntimeExceptions and wrapping them in an IOException looks like the cleanest solution. RuntimeExceptions usually mean bugs, so if the archive code is throwing them due to a corrupted archive, it makes

Re: [commons-pool] branch master updated: [POOL-395] Improve exception thrown in GenericObjectPool.borrowObject when pool is exhausted. Added BaseGenericObjectPool.setMessagesStatistics(boolean).

It's hard to tell what the actual change is below with all of the formatting / cosmetic changes mixed it, but AFAICT there is no sync control to ensure consistency or currency of the stats reported. Some note in javadoc or somewhere should be added to make it clear that stats may not accurately

Re: [commons-dbcp] 03/09: Use for-each loops

First, many thanks for the cleanup work. One thing to bear in mind for the loop changes is that in some cases the underlying collections may be changing as the loops progress. In theory, unit tests should pick up any problems introduced, but we should look carefully at this. Phil On 12/4/20

Re: How to run Test cases of Apache Commons Lang in Intellij?

On 12/1/20 3:19 AM, Kanak Sony wrote: Hey Developers, I have been trying to debug the library in Intellij and in respect to that trying to run test cases of Apache Commons Lang in intellij but I was unable to find the same. Can anyone of you please suggest me if any such resources are availabl

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

, 2020 at 8:30 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 9/14/20 10:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:07 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 9/14/20 9:36 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: This feature is now in Pool master. I will prepare an RC soon if you all think we are good to go so we can then move on to

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

On 9/14/20 10:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:07 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 9/14/20 9:36 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: This feature is now in Pool master. I will prepare an RC soon if you all think we are good to go so we can then move on to DBCP. I am still working on

Re: [DBCP] Release 2.8.0

Sounds good.  I implemented the DBCP changes this weekend but did not finish testing and I had to make some decisions that would be good to talk about.  I will ask about that in another thread.  I think the pool changes are fine though and will meet the need. On 9/21/20 7:55 AM, Gary Gregory w

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

, Sep 7, 2020, 19:08 Gary Gregory wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:02 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 9/3/20 2:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil Steitz wrote: If others agree it is a good idea for dbcp, I can do it. I can see the argument that its better to stay with close() even

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

On 9/3/20 2:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil Steitz wrote: If others agree it is a good idea for dbcp, I can do it.  I can see the argument that its better to stay with close() even for abandoned and I have not been able to get the deadlock to happen, so I would like to

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

l client. Phil Gruss Bernd -- http://bernd.eckenfels.net Von: Mark Thomas Gesendet: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:44:52 AM An: dev@commons.apache.org Betreff: Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections? On 31/08/2020 01:05, Phil St

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

On 8/30/20 4:00 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 2:30 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 8/30/20 9:22 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: Hm... would we need the flexibility of passing custom enums? For example, CloseMode could be an interface implemented by various enums in the style of the

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

ult method. [*] New enum ? Gary On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:02 PM Gary Gregory wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz wrote: A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-us

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

: Commons Developers List Betreff: Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections? On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:41 PM Phil Steitz wrote: On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz wrote: A pool-related deadlock was reported

Re: [dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

On 8/29/20 11:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Phil Steitz wrote: A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-user. The OP was using a different pool, but it looks to me like the same deadlock could happen with dbcp. The source is arguably a

[dbcp][pool] Use abort instead of close for abandoned connections?

A pool-related deadlock was reported recently in [1] to tomcat-user.  The OP was using a different pool, but it looks to me like the same deadlock could happen with dbcp.  The source is arguably a driver bug, but in [2], the driver maintainer makes the good point that to avoid the problem in [1

Re: [all] When to update dependencies?

On 7/24/20 1:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi all here I'd like to explain why I prefer not to update dependencies just because we can. Maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong. I've tried to make this point in different threads but either it has been lost or it just wasn't worth discussing. F

Re: [pool] Re: [DBCP] testEvict fails

On 7/8/20 8:33 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 7:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: The test looks a little off to me. I am not sure I fully understand what it is

Re: [pool] Re: [DBCP] testEvict fails

On 7/5/20 7:08 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: The test looks a little off to me.  I am not sure I fully understand what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails sporadically (I have seen this

Re: [pool] Re: [DBCP] testEvict fails

On 7/5/20 6:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: The test looks a little off to me.  I am not sure I fully understand what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails sporadically (I have seen this myself) is that to succeed it needs to run

[pool] Re: [DBCP] testEvict fails

On 7/5/20 11:07 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: The test looks a little off to me.  I am not sure I fully understand what it is trying to do, but I suspect that the reason that it fails sporadically (I have seen this myself) is that to succeed it needs to run two evictor cycles when it is set to

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >