On 3/13/06, peter royal <proyal@apache.org> wrote:
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.. 

Yep I think so because decoder only works inside the thread pool threads.  Could you dig into the code a little bit?  I might be wrong. ;)

Oh, did you retain the event order?  That sounds very interesting.  I'll take a look at the code.

Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6