[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3378?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12570816#action_12570816
]
Serge Tsv commented on DERBY-3378:
----------------------------------
Hmmm...
I should apologize myself first I guess for not actually verifying the patch. I
haven't actually compiled the changed code using a Derby build.xml, as my
Netbeans haven't displayed any error. Sorry for that. Not quite professional
:-(, I guess it's a good lesson for a future.
I do also think that implementing a Java SE 5 specific TimerFactory won't give
many benefits which ant won't overweight a difficulty of maintaining an
additional code.
But anyway some common thread-naming scheme could be considered when and if
there're plans for porting entirely to JDK 5.
Thanks!
> Derby's timer thread should have a name that identifies it as belong to a
> derby instance
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3378
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3378
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Newcomer, Services
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: DERBY-3378.diff
>
>
> Looking at the threads with jconsole when derby is running shows derby's
> timer thread as Timer-0.
> All other derby threads are given a name starting with 'derby.', would be
> useful if the same was true for the timer thread.
> In SingletonTimerFactory just use the Timer constructor that takes a name.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
