Nice, I'm going to work on this as soon as my previous patch gets applied.
I've some more very minor issues to add to the new patch if you agree:
service thread is started by:
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate( task, period, period );
I would think the first operation should start immediately, not after period.
Also I would use schedule( task, long, long) instead of scheduleAtFixedRate;
the "atFixedRate" version means it will begin sooner if it started too late,
we don't require this (correct?).
So I propose:
timer.schedule( task, 0, period );
Also the timer creates another thread, running concurrently to itself
and skipping task if the previous is still working.
What would I miss if I just let the Timer do the job, without needing
the Executor around? (one less thread and less code to check
current activity as the timer supports that check for us).
Using the executor it would be nice to share the same
executor among several Directory Providers, to have better
resource bounds (serialize the copy for different instances
of FSSlave/Master Providers).
Would a static Executor instance be ugly?
2008/4/28 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>:
One JIRA / patch is good
Self-conflict is not always bad "When fight begins within himself, a man's
worth something." - Sir Frederick Browning :)
On Apr 27, 2008, at 08:03, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> I would like to address A and B first; may I
> open a single JIRA for both? both issues are related to the same files
> and I would
> like to avoid having to produce two different patches, potentially
> with myself.