commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release [pool] 2.1 based on RC1
Date Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:33:39 GMT
On 12/26/13, 1:31 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/12/2013 20:37, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> The clirr breakage needs to dealt with / explained in the release
>> notes.  As it stands, the statements about compatibility are not
>> correct.
> I would argue that there is nothing incorrect about those statements. No
> client of Pool should be using any (.*)MXBean class directly since the
> sole purpose of such a class is to expose $1 via JMX.

Agreed in principle.  The only issue would be if someone decided to
implement their own PooledObject implementation, not extending
DefaultPooledObject but reusing the management interface.  I know
this is far-fetched.  Technically, since the interface is public, we
have broken compatibility, so I would like to either remove the
claim of source/binary compat or qualify it in some way.  I will fix
>> I think the breakage is OK, but would appreciate suggestions on how
>> to document in the release notes.
> I don't think anything belongs in the release notes about this. The
> MXBean naming convention should be familiar to anyone using Pool. If it
> is felt that something more needs to be done then I'd suggest adding an
> explicit warning to all the MXBean classes that they must not be used
> directly by clients
or reused by extensions of pool classes
>  and that they may change in compatible ways between
> any release including point releases.

Will do.
> Mark
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message