When you talk about the cost, do you mean backward compatibility?
2017-08-02 4:38 GMT-03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > On 02/08/2017 00:02, João Paulo Lemes Machado wrote: > > Hi Mark. > > > > Did you take a look at my suggestion? > > Yes. I don't think the cost is worth the benefit. > > Mark > > > > > > 2017-07-25 15:33 GMT-03:00 João Paulo Lemes Machado < > lemesmach...@gmail.com> > > : > > > >> Hi Mark, tanks for the comment. > >> > >> Let me take the DataSourceProxy as example. > >> > >> This class has 142 methods of which 112 are get () and set () methods. > >> We could mark these methods as deprecated and copy them to a new class: > >> DataSourceProxyConfig, but we would leave them in the DataSourceProxy > class, > >> and they would be removed gradually. > >> > >> Those parameters and methods would be accessed by an instance variable > of > >> DataSourceProxyConfig in DataSourceProxy. > >> > >> So we will keep the methods in the original class for some time so that > >> developers who have some assumption about the class can adapt. > >> > >> However, when choosing the methods we could analyze their complexity. If > >> it is a simple set () or get () that only sets or returns a value it > would > >> be prioritized. > >> > >> > >> > >> Methods that have a greater complexity, or that make calls to other > >> methods would not be extracted at first. > >> > >> > >> And if for some reason we can not make these changes (remove the > methods), > >> this strategy can be adopted to prevent these classes from growing even > >> more. It can also be adopted as a new practice for creating new classes > in > >> the future. > >> > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2017-07-25 10:40 GMT-03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > >> > >>> On 25/07/17 13:55, João Paulo Lemes Machado wrote: > >>>> Hello everyone. > >>>> > >>>> My name is João Paulo, I am a graduate student the Federal University > of > >>>> Uberlandia, Brazil. > >>>> > >>>> I was analyzing the modularization of some classes of Tomcat, and I > >>>> identified some opportunities for cohesion improvement in the > following > >>>> classes: > >>>> > >>>> DataSourceProxy > >>>> ConnectionPool > >>>> BasicDataSource > >>>> DelegatingCallableStatement > >>>> PoolProperties > >>>> PoolConfiguration > >>> > >>> Those look to be from a mix of implementations (Commons DBCP and > >>> Tomcat's jdbc-pool). > >>> > >>> This is the place to discuss changes to Tomcat's jdbc-pool. DBCP > changes > >>> should be discussed on the Apache Commons dev mailing list. > >>> > >>>> Could you please take a look and tell me if it's viable? > >>> > >>> Hard to comment without a concrete example. > >>> > >>>> Maybe some of these classes could benefit from some kind of > refactoring > >>>> that we can discuss. > >>> > >>> Maybe. What did you have in mind? > >>> > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
