DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14982>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14982 GenericObjectPool does not work with null factory. ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-12-01 18:30 ------- > The descriptions of the GenericObjectPool > constructors state that factory may > be "possibly null". This is a desirable > feature, but its implementation is > buggy and incomplete. Those comments are correct, if slightly misleading. The GenericObjectPool constructors *do* allow a null value for the PoolableObjectFactory, but clients must call setFactory() to set the factory to a non-null value before using the pool. > The pool is unusable with null factory: That is correct. I've added a note to the javadoc comments clarifying this. > need addNewObject() method I'm not sure GenericObjectPool is especially useful without a PoolableObjectFactory, since much of its functionality is aimed at destroying objects when they're not likely to be needed or useful. Much of what GenericObjectPool is doing can't be done without a Factory. > For convenience there should > be constructors that do not > require passing factory at all. I've added a no-arg constructor, which will allow GenericObjectPool to be configured in a fully bean-ish fashion. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
