commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [POOL2] Java 1.5 or 1.6?
Date Fri, 06 May 2011 16:00:08 GMT
On 5/6/11 8:35 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/05/2011 16:24, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 5/6/11 3:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Before I go too far down the road of the re-writing the core object
>>> allocation code for pool2, I'd like to get some clarity on what the
>>> minimum Java version targeted by pool2 should be.
>> It is also logical to ask at this point if the rewrite is desirable
>> / necessary and what we expect to gain from it.  I have pretty
>> consistently advocated this, but given the work and inevitable
>> stabilization required, we should at least ask the question.  Seems
>> to me the goals should be 0) performance 1) maintainability 2)
>> robustness 3) (configurable?) fairness.  Do you agree with these and
>> are you sure the rewrite is necessary to get them?
> Yes I agree. To address 0), we need to remove most/all of the
> synchronisation around object allocation. That means a re-write, almost
> certainly with java.u.c. I still have concerns around 1) & 2). The more
> I think about this problem, the more I realise I need to spend more time
> thinking about the problem. At the moment, I would rather take the time
> and get this right.
>
+1 - let's get it right!  See post to follow on robustness, which
may have implications on this (active instance tracking).

>>> It is currently 1.5.
>>>
>>> It would make the implementation of the FIFO/LIFO allocation option
>>> considerably easier if that was changed to 1.6.
>> Can you explain a little what the problem is?
> Sure. In pool1 we have the ability (via CursorableLinkedList) to remove
> and insert idle objects at any point in the queue. We use this for the
> evictor and idle validation. It we switch to java.u.c (and I think it is
> almost certain we will have to to get the performance we want) there are
> far fewer options over object insertion/creation.
>
> In Java 1.5, LinkedBlockingQueue only supports FIFO. It is not possible
> to remove from the tail of the queue or insert at the head. That makes
> LIFO pretty much impossible to implement.
>
> In Java 1.6, LinkedBlockingDeque allows inserts and removals at either
> end of the queue. That solves the LIFO/FIFO issue but not the eviction /
> idle validation questions. I have some ideas about this but I am trying
> to avoid creating lots of complexity. I am also mulling over how to
> ensure that maxActive and friends are adhered to.

Got it.  Lets discuss the options in detail.

Phil
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message