Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 16433 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2005 15:55:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2005 15:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 50113 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2005 15:55:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 50058 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2005 15:55:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 50044 invoked by uid 99); 18 Aug 2005 15:55:23 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:55:22 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (asf.osuosl.org: transitioning domain of andyp@bea.com does not designate 194.203.24.3 as permitted sender) Received: from [194.203.24.3] (HELO ukhwmh01.bea.com) (194.203.24.3) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:55:41 -0700 Received: from BANDICOOT.bea.com ([10.43.242.234]) by ukhwmh01.bea.com (Switch-3.0.5/Switch-3.0.0) with ESMTP id j7IFtFNt031449; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:55:17 +0100 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050818084910.023e3868@ussfex01.bea.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:54:56 -0700 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org From: Andy Piper Subject: Re: Thread Pool vs WorkManager In-Reply-To: References: <6B57BADE-86CF-4591-BFC9-385204428BA6@hiramchirino.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.8.18.13 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 08:19 AM 8/16/2005, Aaron Mulder wrote: > What's the difference between using a thread pool and using a work >manager? I think OpenEJB uses thread pools, and it sounds like ServiceMix >uses work managers. Can we standardize on work managers? At some level they are the same, but Work Manager is a more appropriate abstraction especially if you want to start scheduling stuff in strange or specific ways. For instance WebLogic Server has many WorkManagers (and you can create your own) but they all map to a single thread pool since threads are a costly resource. There are per-WorkManager properties that affect scheduling priorities etc, etc. WebSphere on OS/390 [I think?] allows you to schedule work remotely so a thread pool does not really compute in this context. andy