Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7874 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2006 09:20:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2006 09:20:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 27547 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2006 09:20:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 27531 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2006 09:20:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: users@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 27520 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2006 09:20:20 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:20:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [195.130.133.68] (HELO assei1bl6.telenet-ops.be) (195.130.133.68) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:20:19 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by assei1bl6.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id BA97C22009C for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:19:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.2.2] (d54C1AE48.access.telenet.be [84.193.174.72]) by assei1bl6.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BFA22008B for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:19:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: cocoon actions implements threadsafe From: Bruno Dumon To: users@cocoon.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <44807D9A.4080803@dslextreme.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:19:55 +0200 Message-Id: <1149326396.6341.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 14:11 -0400, Doug Herold wrote: > I am sorry I meant SingleThreaded. So you would think that this is a > bottle neck. Unless your actions require heavy initialisation, implementing ThreadSafe or not will only result in minor performance differences (if you call multiple actions during the processing of a request, at best you'll see a difference of a few msecs -- its the difference between directly using an object or having to look it up from the component manager). So sure, implement ThreadSafe if possible, but if you have serious performance issues with your application they are likely to be somewhere else... > > Doug Herold wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have noticed that some of our programers are using > threadsafe when > > creating a class for actions. > > > > public *class* StudentSearchAction *extends* AbstractAction > * > > implements* SingleThreaded { > > > > I read that you should never use SingleThreaded and that it > was going > > to be depreciated. Our server has a very large load, but we > were > > having problems with one user being able to see another > users info. I > > think this is why the used this. We are now having problems > with > > performance. Could this cause performance issues. > > > > Could someone point me to any good articles about the > dangers > > of SingleThread classes and what to do instead of using > them. > > > > Thanks in advance > > Doug -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org