Hi Seb, I totally agree, I'm for this solution, BTW I'll wait the Phil's opinion that knows more than me. Thanks! Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:50 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 October 2010 10:20, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all guys, >> while fixing the deprecated properties in classes like >> StackKeyedObjectPool[1], I noticed this class instance was >> re-configured during the test[2] (see line 126); is the >> "reconfigure-in-runtime" a pool feature we want? I'm asking because >> I've never experienced the pool reconfiguration (I've never had the >> need to do it) so I honestly don't know which is the wished behavior. >> In the scenario we want to keep this feature, since I'm converting >> fields as private, I need to add setters. >> Just let me know!!! Have a nice day, > > AFAIK, the tests that modify the configuration are to be dropped once > the variables are made private. > The idea was not just to make the variables private, but to make them > final as far as possible to improve thread safety. > > Perhaps Phil can confirm this? > >> Simo >> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/bjw >> [2] http://s.apache.org/qB >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
