On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 25/12/2010 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Thanks, Gary!
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Gary Gregory
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hm. Perfo already depends on pool. It would be less controversial to add
> the
> >> test to perfo but that would
On 25/12/2010 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Thanks, Gary!
>
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> Hm. Perfo already depends on pool. It would be less controversial to add the
>> test to perfo but that would not demonstrate the bug in pool itself.
>>
>
> I thought about that
Thanks, Gary!
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
Hm. Perfo already depends on pool. It would be less controversial to add the
> test to perfo but that would not demonstrate the bug in pool itself.
>
I thought about that. That would amount to attaching a [performance]
config f
Hm. Perfo already depends on pool. It would be less controversial to add the
test to perfo but that would not demonstrate the bug in pool itself. I think I
would still depend on perfo.
Gary
On Dec 25, 2010, at 9:03, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> I would just have this new test depend on [performan
I would just have this new test depend on [performance] and be done with it.
Gary
On Dec 25, 2010, at 0:53, "Phil Steitz" wrote:
> I have found what I think is a bug in GKOP[1] using [performance]. I need
> the functionality in the Waiter and WaiterFactory classes in
> o.a.c.performance.pool
I have found what I think is a bug in GKOP[1] using [performance]. I need
the functionality in the Waiter and WaiterFactory classes in
o.a.c.performance.pool to build a test case showing the bug. Having these
classes available to pool's unit tests would be good. I am not sure what
the best appro
