From a versioning perspective, do we want to bump to 7.1?

We've just radically changed the instance management of the MDB container and 
*removed* the old code.  It feels off to deliver kind of a change in a 7.0.x.

The new functionality is awesome, just speaking from a change management 
perspective.

-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

> On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Otávio Santana, Ivan Junckes and Daniel Cunha!
> 
> https://twitter.com/TheASF/status/954212833536884736
> 
> []s,
> Thiago.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:45 AM, Jonathan Gallimore <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for this. I'll give this a test with a snapshot today.
>> 
>> Thank you to Otávio Santana and Ivan Junckes for the contribution.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On 18 Jan 2018 15:37, "Thiago Veronezi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi devs,
>>> 
>>> I'm going to merge the two PRs with the MDB pooling improvements.
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/119
>>> 
>>> I think we managed to address the comments. Thank you everyone! This was
>> a
>>> very nice team work.
>>> 
>>> []s,
>>> Thiago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> SvetlinZarev,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for you reviewing the PR man!
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding the `Thread.interrupted();` you are commenting: I'm not sure.
>>>> This is not new code. It's something we extracted out of the existing
>>>> Stateless container.
>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117#discussion_r159500850
>>>> 
>>>> I will investigate more, but if anyone has any idea of why we use this
>>>> method, that would be awesome.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Thiago.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Thiago Veronezi <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The mdb container is using the default pool 10 instances limit. The
>>>>> stateless container has a `MaxSize` property where the user sets the
>> max
>>>>> number of instances the pool can hold at one time. The mdb container
>>> has a
>>>>> InstanceLimit property that sets the max number of mdb instances are
>>>>> available to use at one time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you guys think about deprecating that mdb property and
>> creating
>>> a
>>>>> `MinSize` and `MaxSize` properties to match the ones in the stateless
>>>>> container?
>>>>> 
>>>>> []s,
>>>>> Thiago
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Otavio and Ivan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I like the fact to extract the instance management from the
>> container -
>>>>>> never made sense for me to reimplement it each time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However I'd like to go further and make the instance manager a
>> resource
>>>>>> reference in the config we can - and avoid boolean/string config like
>>>>>> (InstanceManager = $myMdbInstanceMgr).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Last note: usePool or default impl must be false or without pooling
>> to
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> breaks apps and RA not supporting it, default access/wait timeouts
>>> should
>>>>>> be 0 for compat and perf tuning and additional threads of the manager
>>>>>> should be 1 max (use a global SystemInstance#components thread if not
>>>>>> configured). Also to configure the thread pool, just reuse the
>> builder
>>> we
>>>>>> have, will avoid a lot of duplicated code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hope it helps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le 27 déc. 2017 21:08, "Otávio Gonçalves de Santana" <
>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ivan Junckes and I have been working to improve performance with
>> MDB
>>>>>> pools.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This goal of this proposal is to improve performance in the
>>>>>> message-driven
>>>>>>> bean creation using a pool of 10 objects (default value).
>>>>>>> The strategy is to keep these objects live so that they can be
>> reused
>>>>>>> instead of every time create a new one.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have observed that the Websphere MQ RAR does not provide pool
>>>>>> endpoints,
>>>>>>> and the MDB container was initially written with the assumption
>> that
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> RARs do.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ref: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/117
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to