camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Date Thu, 28 May 2009 11:13:55 GMT
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM, huntc <huntc@mac.com> wrote:
>
> 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?).
Hi Christopher

Good points. I have renamed it from async to threads.

The default pool size is going to be part of an overall easier thread
managment and configuration of Camel planned for 2.1



>
> 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.
>
>



-- 
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer

Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus

Mime
View raw message