On 12/12/11 10:56 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 12/12/11 10:26 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> Hi all guys, >> time ago we spoke about replacing the synchronized blocks inside >> pools, maybe using different strategies like Java5 Read/Write lock (I >> remind you Pool2 requires Java5) and I just started playing with >> PoolUtils with the SynchronizedObjectPool[1] inner class... >> Can we discuss about introducing such modifications inside pool >> implementations? > I would say go for it in PoolUtils. Assuming we keep these pools, > we should update them as we have GOP, GKOP. Regarding the pool you > mention specifically, it is a little funny in that it is designed to > be fully synchronized. Make sure that whatever implementation > changes you propose maintain the contract.
Looking at the github code, I think there may be a problem. Borrow is as much a "write" operation as return - both modify the state of the pool. Phil > > Phil >> Many thanks in advance, all the best! >> -Simo >> >> [1] https://gist.github.com/1468252 >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/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
