On 7/15/12 1:12 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 15/07/2012 01:38, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Sorry if this has been discussed already and I can't find the >> thread; but we should do this now if we want to do it - i.e., move >> DBCP's AbandonedObjectPool into [pool]. > This is certainly something that - on the face of it - makes sense. > However, when I looked at it a little while back it did not appear to be > trivial to unpick the AbandonedObjectPool code from DBCP. > > I didn't spend enough time on it to come to a final conclusion. > > I can look at this in the next week or so. It would be helpful if other > folks looked as well.
I just dug into this a little and it looks like just moving the classes and adjusting imports will work. I had to increase visibility of addTrace, removeTrace, get/setLastUsed in AbandonedTrace; but other than that I did not have to make any changes. If others are OK with this, I will open a JIRA for this (maybe one for each of DBCP, POOL?), continue testing, cleanup the docs and get the changes committed assuming I don't run into any problems. Fortunately, the original design looks like it intended / anticipated this move. Phil > > 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
