directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From peter royal <pro...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r385254 - in /directory/trunks/mina/core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/filter/codec: ProtocolCodecFactory.java ProtocolCodecFilter.java demux/DemuxingProtocolCodecFactory.java demux/MessageDecoderFactory.java demux/MessageEncoderFacto
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:40:14 GMT
On Mar 12, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> Because of datagram transport and pluggable thread pool, we have to  
> retain the synchronization.  Datagram doesn't become a problem if  
> DIRMINA-162 (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-162 ) is  
> resolved.  WRT non-leader-followers thread pool, it apparently is a  
> problem.
>
> The question would be 'do we really need pluggable thread pool?' or  
> 'does an ordinary thread pool outperform a leader-followers thread  
> pool seriously?'  Robert told us an ordinary TP performs 25% better  
> than a LFTP, but it might be just because encoding is not pooled.

Is it really specific to the type of thread pool? I attached a  
pluggable implementation to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ 
DIRMINA-184 , and retained the ordering of events while using a  
ThreadPoolExecutor..
-pete

-- 
proyal@apache.org - http://fotap.org/~osi



Mime
View raw message