On 3/28/11 7:06 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/28/11 2:03 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 28/03/2011 03:44, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> borrowObject, returnObject and invalidatObject also call allocate
>>> within synch blocks. Since clearOldest can be kicked off from
>>> within any activation of allocate,
On 3/28/11 2:03 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/03/2011 03:44, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> borrowObject, returnObject and invalidatObject also call allocate
>> within synch blocks. Since clearOldest can be kicked off from
>> within any activation of allocate, it seems to me we either need to
>> find a di
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/03/2011 20:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/03/2011 19:54, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Phil,
I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
you... :)
>>> Thank
On 28/03/2011 10:03, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/03/2011 03:44, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> borrowObject, returnObject and invalidatObject also call allocate
>> within synch blocks. Since clearOldest can be kicked off from
>> within any activation of allocate, it seems to me we either need to
>> find a d
On 28/03/2011 03:44, Phil Steitz wrote:
> borrowObject, returnObject and invalidatObject also call allocate
> within synch blocks. Since clearOldest can be kicked off from
> within any activation of allocate, it seems to me we either need to
> find a different way to get clearOldest activated or m
borrowObject, returnObject and invalidatObject also call allocate
within synch blocks. Since clearOldest can be kicked off from
within any activation of allocate, it seems to me we either need to
find a different way to get clearOldest activated or move all of the
allocate activations outside of s
On 3/24/11 4:34 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/03/2011 20:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/03/2011 19:54, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Phil,
I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
you... :)
>>> Thanks! You are a
On 3/24/11 4:34 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/03/2011 20:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/03/2011 19:54, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Phil,
I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
you... :)
>>> Thanks! You are a
On 23/03/2011 20:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/03/2011 19:54, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
>>> you... :)
>>>
>> Thanks! You are awesome, Mark!
>>
>> I will finish reviewing your
On 23/03/2011 19:54, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>> I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
>> you... :)
>>
> Thanks! You are awesome, Mark!
>
> I will finish reviewing your last set of commits and then roll an RC.
>
> Did
On 3/23/11 12:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Phil,
>
> I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
> you... :)
>
Thanks! You are awesome, Mark!
I will finish reviewing your last set of commits and then roll an RC.
Did you see my (hopefully baseless) memory leak fear about th
Phil,
I believe all the pool issues for 1.5.x have been resolved. Over to
you... :)
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
12 matches
Mail list logo