On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 12:44 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would say yes, get the regression fix out now and work on POOL-413 et al
> afterwards.

Starting RC...

Gary

>
> Phil
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 6:04 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Phil and all:
> >
> > If I apply https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/pull/453.diff
> > locally, running the test from Eclipse fails, and a Maven (default
> > goal) build fails on random repetition items, for example:
> > https://gist.github.com/garydgregory/fdfbb61360813326998c0e253b10ed52
> >
> > I assume that we want to proceed with an RC to address the regression,
> > and we are pushing this out to future work.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 7:37 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 18:09 Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I updated the changelog and I think we are ready for a patch release.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK sounds good. I'll get to that today.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 12:24 PM Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > That all sounds good. I can create a release candidate anytime if you
> > want.
> > >> >
> > >> > Gary
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 1:43 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Given that the regression reported in POOL-427 is significant, I
> > think we
> > >> > > should move quickly to validate the fix for the regression (or
> > revert
> > >> > back
> > >> > > to the previous version of the method) and create a patch release
> > as soon
> > >> > > as possible.  The investigations around POOL-413 are great and
> > should
> > >> > > continue in parallel.  It would be great if we could discuss ideas
> > for
> > >> > how
> > >> > > to address the core issue there here instead of spread across PRs.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Phil
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 11:10 AM Phil Steitz <[email protected]
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I just reverted the added sync in PR #452, which violates the "no
> > >> > factory
> > >> > > > methods while holding locks" invariant.  Strangely, the added
> > tests for
> > >> > > > POOL-426 still pass.  I think the race condition is still present
> > and
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > general problem in POOL-413 remains unresolved.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:55 PM Phil Steitz <
> > [email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> The fix for POOL-425 included in the 2.13.0 release introduced a
> > >> > > >> regression that makes addObject no-op when maxIdle is set to a
> > >> > negative
> > >> > > >> value (no limit).  The POOL-425 fix also failed to account for a
> > race
> > >> > > >> condition reported in POOL-426.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I have created a PR
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/pull/452
> > >> > that addresses
> > >> > > >> both issues.  To avoid the race condition, I had to add
> > >> > synchronization to
> > >> > > >> addObject.  I tried several ways to avoid the race by modifying
> > >> > create (as
> > >> > > >> suggested by Raju Gupta, the OP for POOL-426) but I could not
> > find a
> > >> > way to
> > >> > > >> do that safely without introducing other issues.  I don't see the
> > >> > added
> > >> > > >> sync in addObject as critical as this method is not used in hot
> > code
> > >> > paths
> > >> > > >> internally and the lock that it acquires is the same lock that
> > create
> > >> > will
> > >> > > >> subsequently acquire if it proceeds to add an object.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The regression could be addressed in a simpler way by just
> > fixing the
> > >> > > >> error in the code (failure to check for negative maxIdle).   If
> > there
> > >> > are
> > >> > > >> any doubts about the PR above, I am happy to make that simple
> > >> > change.  In
> > >> > > >> any case, we should patch this quickly as it will likely break
> > some
> > >> > apps
> > >> > > >> that use addObject with maxIdle unilimited.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks, all, and sorry for my mistake in the POOL-425 fix.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Phil
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >> >
> > >> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to