Mike May I add your comments to the bug report? Oleg On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 19:01, Mike Moran wrote: > Michael Becke wrote: > > > Agreed. A second thread should not be needed though. It can be done > > using something like: > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > [ ... ] > > >> > >> Oleg > >> > >> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 15:36, Ortwin Glück wrote: > >> > >>> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > >>> > >>>> Odi, are you sure you want to have an extra thread per HttpMethod? > >>>> I do > >>>> not think so > >>>> Oleg > >>> > >>> > >>> Better than a busy wait, isn't it? > >> > > I just wanted to butt into this to point out that on some platforms, > such as 2.2 linux, a thread equates to a process id, and you can quickly > run out of them. In these cases, a busy wait is far preferable to a new > Thread. Also firing off a Thread when things are slow can cause sudden > spikes in Thread use. I've recently seen an analogous problem with an > older version of jboss when doing RMI connections which was a pain in > the arse to work around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
