Thx and sorry. Phil
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 1:45 PM Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello Phil, > > Before you push, run 'mvn' (buy itself), this runs the default goal, which > contains all build checks. > > If see the code coverage report, regardless of coverage failures, run: > > mvn clean site -Dcommons.jacoco.haltOnFailure=false > > I'll update the readme... > > TY, > Gary > > On 2024/05/31 20:12:09 Phil Steitz wrote: > > The build worked locally for me fine. I could not get the site to build. > > Is there some sequence that I need to use to get the site to build? I > did > > run Checksytle and Findbugs separately. What is the test coverage plugin > > and how do I run that? > > > > Phil > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:53 AM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > Thank you for the note. I'll try to take a look soon. > > > > > > The new code causes the build to fail as it looks like not all of it is > > > covered by unit tests. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:29 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I just committed a first attempt at providing the above, intended > as a > > > fix > > > > for POOL-407 and a lot of similar issues reported over the years. > The > > > > scenario in POOL-407 is common when resource providers (like > databases) > > > go > > > > down: > > > > > > > > 1. makeObject requests start to fail and threads line up waiting on > the > > > > deque. > > > > 2. The provider comes back up so makes will succeed again, but the > > > clients, > > > > the pool and the factory are all ignorant of this fact, so no > clients get > > > > served. > > > > > > > > What I just committed puts the resilience responsibility on the > factory, > > > > having it monitor itself. That responsibility could arguably be put > > > > instead on the pool. > > > > > > > > To use the feature as is, you need to create a > > > ResilientPooledObjectFactory > > > > wrapping a PooledObjectFactory, configure it, attach it to its pool > and > > > > start its monitor. The formerly disabled GOP test, > > > > testLivenessOnTransientFactoryFailure, shows how to do it. The > setup is > > > a > > > > little awkward. I would appreciate feedback on the following > options for > > > > how to improve it (or any other comments on the code): > > > > > > > > 0) Roll it back and come up with something better > > > > 1) Leave as is > > > > 2) add a GOP config that results in its factory being wrapped > > > automatically > > > > in a RPOF. > > > > 3) move the functionality into the pool > > > > > > > > The other thing that needs to be designed is how to make the > proactive > > > make > > > > attempt strategy configurable. It is hard-coded now in the RPOF > > > runChecks > > > > and the Adder inner class. The initial implementation is primitive: > > > > Monitor the makeObject log. Any failure triggers start of an Adder > that > > > > tries addObject with configurable delay and (hard-coded) max > failures. > > > > Once the circular log becomes filled with successes, turn the adder > off. > > > > > > > > Also, RPOF spawns a monitoring thread and, when it detects a > transient > > > > failure, an adder thread. Careful review - and improvement - of the > > > > management of these threads would be appreciated. I tried to make > sure, > > > > and added tests to confirm, that closing the pool kills these > threads. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
