commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: [pool] comparison with other pool library
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:55:37 GMT
On 03/03/2012 18:32, Chris Vest wrote:
> Hey guys,
> I've written an object pool myself, and make a short comparison between it
> and commons-pool in my documentation, to help people choose between the two.
> It's here (under the "why choose..."
> headline)
> and some more here
> (under
> the "Introduction" headline)
> Let me know if I've misrepresented commons-pool. I don't want to spread
> misinformation.

A few areas where your statements are not entirely accurate:

Thread safety:
- Commons Pool *is* thread safe.

- There are two types of Pool hence two APIs (ObjectPool and
KeyedObjectPool). Each type has multiple implementations. Users are free
to use implementation specific methods *if they want to* but to suggest
that there are many implementations each with a different API is not

Any numbers to back up the claim that Commons Pool is less performant?
It wouldn't surprise me on multi-core machines - that is after all one
of the primary goals of Commons Pool 2.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message