----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And, of course, there are still those > > synchronization and the delays it causes on ALL OTHER waiting threads. > > Noel is entirely correct here.
Not completly . Can be fixed in impl. Will post code. > This is actually incorrect. Danny's issues were due to > misconfiguration, not code errors. There was one errant notify(), but > it did not cause the problem Danny observed. This is not what Danny said in his last mail on testing. Did he retest ? > > As I noted in my original patch submission, testing was still underway. > I caught the errant notify() in the load test, and corrected it. Piece > of cake. And that's exactly why one does testing. Please post the fix. Would be nice to send patch fixes esp. for this change to dev list. > > Of course. > > > > Let us talk code and results rather than take up mutually exclusive > > > positions. > > > > I have been. I have proposed a compromise that allows the choice of > > either > > implementation. Peter is willing to do it. The code is already > written > > to > > allow this compromise. Please accept it. > > I'm fine with the compromise. I've already written a factory class to > provide this functionality and altered the handlers as necessary. I > can't imagine why anyone would use the centralized Scheduler, but > whatever. As long as I can run a proper timeout mechanism off the code > base, I'm happy. I want a formal proposal and voting to change the abstraction. Please make a proposal and if others committers are comfortable changing abstractions in this release I will not say nay. My preference is to delay refactoring, but as I said I'll go along. Harmeet -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
