camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From huntc <hu...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Date Mon, 25 May 2009 07:00:17 GMT

Hi Claus,

As per your blog request, I'd like to discuss the virtues of naming the
async method "async" vs treating your 2.0 functionality as a new
implementation of the existing "thread" method.

When I think about concurrency I think about multiple threads of execution -
not whether something is asynchronous. You can have something being
asynchronous without it being multi-threaded e.g. Javascript's
XmlHttpRequest. 

Thread also implies just one thread. Perhaps renaming async to "threads" and
deprecating "thread" may be the way to go? Specifying "threads" without a
thread pool size should perhaps default to the number of processors + 1 as a
rule... (as per MINA?).

Thoughts?

Kind regards,
Christopher
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-2.0-Async-Findings---Roadmap-to-a-solution-tp23310165p23702159.html
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message