> commons-monitoring or commons-timing seem to be the correct thing
> however,
> but I would like to think that there would be more impetus
I'm afraid that it's rather the lack of manpower.
[And my inner conviction is that that state of things often
led to rush to cramming more code into existing components,
rather than "distribute" more uniformly according to subject
matters. When scarce human resources ("community") disappear,
cruft accumulates, sometimes up to stifle clean-up, maintenance,
improvement, and even development.]
> to do this than
> thinking StackWatch is ‘too big’ for lang.time.
It isn't any more than many other functionalities that were
introduced but shouldn't have been.
Depending on what the "Commons" PMC wants to favour ("code"
*or* "community"?), the choice is between continuing with the
accumulation, or back-pedaling through the creation of as
many *real* components as they are developers willing to
maintain them.
> It really isn’t that complicated a thing.
Sure.
The issue is somewhere else.
Note that, personally, I hadn't imagined that there would
be an issue for regular developers of [Lang] (or I wouldn't
have spent time reviewing the "details" ;-).
But I of course agree that the question should be asked; the
more so that, with [Math], we've a striking example of what
awaits a library that lacks boundary checks and explicit
road map.
Regards,
Gilles
> On March 8, 2018 at 11:50:17, Gilles
(gil...@harfang.homelinux.org)
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:03:24 +0000, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and unfocused
>> like
>> SomethingUtils.
>> We need a proper home.
>
> +1
>
>> How about the idea of commons-measure.
>
> Just because the first feature would happen to be a timer?
> What other content do you foresee?
>
>> Then there
>> still the idea of resurrecting other Apache projects. Kind of
going
>> in
>> circles...
>
> Indeed, IIRC the questions were asked (whether the feature could
> be contributed to ex-Sirona and whether that project would be
> repatriated to "Commons") but not answered (unless I'm
mistaken)...
>
> Best,
> Gilles
>
>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2018 08:58, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> So, could think about commons-misc or something?
>> I don’t think we are going to come up with a perfect module for
>> these
>> things.
>>
>> Maybe the way it can work is:
>>
>> commons-misc exists.
>>
>> It is the landing place for things that seem to be outside the
scope
>> of
>> commons-xxxx, but don’t justify
>> a new module or sandbox effort.
>>
>> Things in misc can be reevaluated for inclusion in new modules at
>> things
>> go, and at that point @Depricated
>> out of misc.
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 3, 2018 at 00:42:12, Matt Sicker (boa...@gmail.com)
wrote:
>>
>> On 2 March 2018 at 13:31, Oliver Heger
>> <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One other suggestion: It was stated in the past that the
concurrent
>>> classes are also a bit out of scope for [lang], especially the
>>> circuit
>>> breaker implementations. Would it make sense to move those into
a
>>> new
>>> module, and could this be a home for the watch classes, too?
>>>
>>
>> Considering the amount of retry libraries there are out there, I
>> think it
>> makes perfect sense for circuit breaker libraries to be their own
>> thing,
>> too. See Hysterix for example.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
