I sent this several hours ago through my Yahoo account, but it appears
not to have gone through. Resending.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:17 AM
To: 'James Developers List'
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Removing Scheduler dependency, refactoring service
code-P
Danny,
> > > 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 ?
>
>
> Woah, hey.. I'll test patches, but I'm *not* going to re-configure by
> myself to make them work, in case the effore I put in biases me to one
or
> other solution.
> If a patch nees a certain configuration to perform correctly, patch
config
> as well.
As explained previously, the config was patched. You didn't pick up the
patch from the CVS head. For the same reason you didn't pick up the
assembly.xml patch. Phoenix doesn't overwrite either the assembly.xml
or config.xml in a running system when you deploy a new .sar.
As far as the configuration change biasing thing to make it work, that's
not a fair statement. It would be like me arguing that the fetchpop
code obviously didn't work being I didn't adjust either my assembly.xml
or config.xml to take account for it. Some patches require
configuration changes. That's just how it is. If you want to run the
old code (or Harmeet's scheduler) with a 100 thread max you'll see the
exact same problem you would at 40 (old code will crash from
OutOfMemory, Harmeet's most recent scheduler still won't actually do
anything)
> And guys.. frankly, why the hell can't we have a watchdog replacement
for
> the scheduler , and leave out the refactoring?
Frankly, what refactoring? The changes are minimal. We're eliminating
a superfluous class and replacing a Cornerstone dependency
(AbstractService) with a better, more James specific solution
(AbstractJamesService). We've made much greater changes in the code
with far less of a fuss.
We've been working on this code for months, and it has been stated over
and over again that this change was coming. Harmeet has simply jumped
in at the end of the release and started playing obstructionist games.
And quite honestly, that's what I find wearisome.
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
