On 6/4/11 2:08 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 04/06/2011 22:06, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 6/4/11 12:05 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> On 04/06/2011 18:41, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>> It makes a lot of sense and makes clearer fields semantics, +1 >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> +1 >>> >>> Note, there will need to be some refactoring in the Config classes for this. >> Yes, and it will increase the smell in what I personally see as >> over-engineered inheritence in the config classes. Since minIdle, >> maxIdle are not now used or defined in GKOP, these will be unused >> and confusing config fields for GKOP. This and the fact that some >> defaults are different and the config params have different meanings >> leads me to suggest that we dispense with BaseObjectPoolConfig and >> just repeat the common fields for GKOP, GOP configs. It is >> essential that we define config params precisely and completely in >> javadoc and this will be easier if we separate the configs. > If there is any commonality I would prefer to see it remain in the base > class (I like to avoid copy and paste coding)
I do too and I agree that some of the bad javadoc in earlier versions of [pool] was the result of exactly that - trying to "reuse" via cut and past imprecise property descriptions between GOP and GKOP. DBCP was, and to some extent still is, infected by this. I will take a crack at pulling out all the stuff that needs different descriptions between GOP and GKOP and see what remains. Phil > but I have no issue > separating out things that are different. > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
