[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12965682#action_12965682
]
Simone Tripodi commented on POOL-177:
-------------------------------------
I'd generally agree on applying this patch, but I join people saying that
storing the config instance inside pools - and setting/getting values to/from
it - could be malicious; my reason is, since config could be shared, immagine
the same configuration instance will be used to create 2 different pools, and
at runtime one of these pools configuration will be modified... the other one
will start working in an undesired way :(
I can apply the patch and modify it according to this generally approved
thought, otherwise if you have some spare time you can commit directly and you
or I can adapt the code. Does it work for you?
> GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory and GenericObjectPoolFactory to share a common
> superclass
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: POOL-177
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-177
> Project: Commons Pool
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: Nightly Builds
> Reporter: Gary Gregory
> Fix For: 2.0
>
> Attachments: POOL-177.diff, POOL-177.diff
>
>
> I see now in trunk that GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig extends
> GenericObjectPoolConfig, which I like.
> It seems that the next step would be for GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory and
> GenericObjectPoolFactory to share a common superclass.
> To see what I mean, look at the patch in this ticket.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
