I've run some concurrent tests with clustering enabled where objects are placed/read/removed from the context Maps. In this case, the services place objects in the Map in addition to the clustering mechanism updating the Maps. So far, I didn't face any concurrency issues. Also, synchronizing all the methods, as in a Hashtable may really slow things down in such an environment.
-- Azeez On 6/12/07, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > IIRC the flip side of the same argument was brought as a reason. > Hashtables are slower than hashmaps due to the synching. > In how many places do we have to synch if we just use the map ? if > there are many I suggest we use the hashtable. However if there are > only one or two place where we have to sync then I suggest we keep the > maps for performance reasons. At the same time we haven't seen any problems so far using hashmaps. So why do we wanna fix it for some futuristic reason. I would wait and use hashmap just for performance reasons and wait till anything comes up. Chinthaka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGbrTGjON2uBzUhh8RApIPAJ4i54h4xgcAHqQBif+LIs0qPSlD2QCePCrF FxzePpJLKjxdKfFBkVBES+s= =nOjK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Thanks Afkham Azeez http://www.wso2.org GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760
