geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Thread Pool vs WorkManager
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:18:21 GMT
	I am speaking of J2CA 1.5 WorkManager

Aaron

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't looked into the code here, but anyway...
> 
> There are at least 2 work manager concepts
> --j2ca 1.5 WorkManager, which includes stuff like transaction import.  
> This is not appropriate for use as a plain thread pool
> --jsr ??? AFAIK unapproved WorkManager proposal, which is a reasonable 
> interface for a thread pool.  IIRC someone planned to provide an 
> implementation of this but I haven't seen anything yet.
> 
> Can you guys be a little more precise about which WorkManager concept 
> you are discussing?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Aug 16, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
> > 	I guess what I was saying was, let's pick one abstraction and go
> > with it.  It seems weird to have half the threads managed via thread
> > pools, and half managed by work managers.  If we agree that work 
> > managers
> > are the way to get, we can use an adapter like you suggest to make 
> > OpenEJB
> > work with a work manager, and then dispense with the thread pools in 
> > the
> > server configuration.  Is that OK with everyone?
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> I don't think it is a big deal to use a concurrent Executor, since it
> >> is a subset of WorkManager.  Executor has one method:
> >>
> >>      public void execute(java.lang.Runnable command)
> >>
> >> which maps easily to:
> >>
> >>      public void scheduleWork(Work work)
> >>
> >> Now, we just need WorkManagerExector and RunnableWork classes :)
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
> >> On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Thomas P. Fuller wrote:
> >>
> >>> Aaron,
> >>>
> >>> Ok I'm not an expert on the internals of J2EE
> >>> architecture, but I'm going to give my .02$ here
> >>> regardless and you can beat me up if/when you
> >>> disagree:
> >>>
> >>> I think the standardization should be on the work
> >>> manager api since it's purpose is to provide "...a
> >>> concurrent programming API for use within managed
> >>> environments on the Java TM platform, such as Servlets
> >>> and EJBs" (I'm quoting directly from the paper
> >>> Commonj-TimerAndWorkManager-Specification-v1.1).
> >>>
> >>> Using the work manager api also seems to make for a
> >>> more sound architecture since the responsibility of
> >>> task execution would be left to the api and would
> >>> remove the requirement to maintain this logic in more
> >>> than one place.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, it would seem appropriate that a future
> >>> enhancement to the OpenEJB impl could involve the
> >>> removal of the thread pools, replacing it with
> >>> delegation of task execution directly to the work
> >>> manager api; this is speculation and off topic,
> >>> however, and so I won't continue.
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
> >>
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message