June.Parks_at_sun.com wrote on 10/14/09 08:58:
> On 10/13/09 16:05, Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Nachiappan Veerappan Nachiappan wrote on 10/13/09 10:46 AM:
>>
>>> Dixie,
>>>
>>> In create-threadpool command man page the option --workqueues (V2) has
>>> been changed to --max-queue-size in V3.
>>> Please change that to --workqueues.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand. Please change *what* to "--workqueues"?
>>
>> Why was the name of the option changed incompatibly between v2 and v3?
>> Did you mean that you were going to change the code to rename the option
>> to be compatible with v2?
>>
> Behind the scenes the num-work-queues attribute has been removed and
> max-queue-size has been added in v3. The Grizzly engineers have the
> details. Perhaps --workqueues should be a no-op. It would be confusing
> to use --workqueues for the max-queue-size attribute, because
> --workqueues accepted a number of queues while max-queue-size accepts a
> number of bytes.
Nachiappan Veerappan Nachiappan wrote on 10/13/09 16:54:
> Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Nachiappan Veerappan Nachiappan wrote on 10/13/09 10:46 AM:
>>
>>> Dixie,
>>>
>>> In create-threadpool command man page the option --workqueues (V2) has
>>> been changed to --max-queue-size in V3.
>>> Please change that to --workqueues.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand. Please change *what* to "--workqueues"?
>>
> The create-threadpool command man page which was sent for review had the
> option --workqueues changed to --max-queue-size. So i requested Dixie to
> change that to --workqueues, because the command implementation has
> --workqueues as option name.
>> Why was the name of the option changed incompatibly between v2 and v3?
>>
> The name of the option was not changed in the command implementation.
> There is no incompatibility issue with regards to command implementation
> between v2 and v3. All the options have the same name as in V2.
Which of the above is correct?
Hopefully you didn't keep the option name the same but change its
semantics.