> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 06:35 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies. > > On 10/30/10 2:30 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > the benefits of eliminating the member variables in favor of storing > > pool config reference are IMHO in therms of code maintainability and > > keep it as much simple as possible. > > Maybe I am being dense here, but I don't quite get that. The pool > has properties such as numActive that it needs to maintain as well > as the config-related properties. Keeping the Config instance > around as a new pool property adds complexity and doesn't really > improve maintainability, as far as I can see; but it is quite > possible I am missing something.
I do not think anyone is being dense here ;) This conversation is revealing to me that what the pool concepts I have in my head might be based on incorrect assumptions. When I initially saw the long list of ivars (13 or so I think) that GOP and GKOP had in common, that duplication jumped out to me as duplication. This is the initial issue I was trying to resolve. It turns out that the 'fix' for that also leaked to the config classes. As this thread goes on, it /sounds like/ that the GOP and GKOP are really completely different beasts, which justify what /appears/ like duplication. Here, it would help to have ivars and methods renamed to the best possible names, which would remove the appearance of duplication. But I do not buy the completely different beasts argument 100% because the GKOP pool feels related to the GOP. It would be possible for example, that the GOP subclass GKOP as a degenerate simple case where the GOP has one pool in a GKOP. That seems radical, but it would eliminate a lot of apparent code duplication: public class AltGenericObjectPool<T> extends GenericKeyedObjectPool<T, T>. That would be weird in the sense that APIs like borrowObject() and borrowObject(T) would be available but you get the idea. Finally, if GOP and GKOP are really separate classes not meant to share code, then should go back to ivars instead of a config object in each pool? Gary > > > > > You can see the difference between the current > > Stack(Keyed)ObjectPool(Factory) - which are implemented according your > > vision - and Generic(Keyed)ObjectPool(Factory) implementations - that > > are still implemented with my first refactory. > > No, these have the same new complexity (vis a vis the original code) > and I am not seeing what the benefit is. Keeping the pool > properties as member fields, making the Config objects immutable and > just having the ctors copy properties from the immutable Config > instances (which are then thrown away) seems simpler and no harder > to maintain to me. Again, I must be missing something. > > I guess at the end of the day, I don't see the "Config" abstraction > as adding anything post-construction - i.e,, this abstraction is > only useful at pool construction time. From the user perspective, > the config properties are no different from any other pool > properties, nor are they different internally. Why should we need > to write Config.maxActive internally, but just use numActive and > other properties directly? This looks to me like added complexity > that does not add any value, at least for the pools. It makes more > sense to me for the factories to hold a reference to a Config instance. > > Phil > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Phil Steitz<phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/29/10 2:41 PM, James Carman wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I had overlooked that aspect ... > >>>> > >>>> If some changes are more expensive to perform, then the method might > >>>> want to determine which items have changed, rather than just > >>>> reconfiguring everything. > >>>> There may be some changes that don't require a pool update. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Right now, it appears that they just call that "allocate" method which > >>> seems like they kind of "nuke and pave", so I don't think it's that > >>> big of a deal. > >>> > >>>> Factory reconfig probably just needs to update the stored config > >>>> variable, which can be volatile. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'm not familiar with this factory config stuff. I'll have to dig in > >>> further. > >> > >> Sorry to be late on this. Here are the requirements: > >> > >> 1. Some subset of the config properties (need to decide this - should be > >> topic of a different thread) need to be *individually* mutable at runtime - > >> e.g., setMaxActive(newMaxActive) needs to remain. We have agreed at this > >> point that at least maxActive and maxWait need to be runtime mutable. > >> > >> 2. Correct functioning of the pool with the current implementation requires > >> that no thread can change maxActive while another thread holds the lock on > >> the pool's monitor. Just making the properties volatile or protecting them > >> with another lock will cause problems. > >> > >> I am OK keeping the mutable Config instances around, but I don't see any > >> real advantage to eliminating the member variables storing pool config > >> properties - i.e., my preference would be to make the Config instances > >> immutable and only used as structs for ctors. > >> > >> I am +0 on adding a (pool-synchronized) reconfigure(Config) to enable > >> multiple properties to be changed atomically. > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
