On 11/05/2011 04:34, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 5/10/11 7:26 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 5/10/11 8:48 AM, ma...@apache.org wrote: >>> Author: markt >>> Date: Tue May 10 15:48:22 2011 >>> New Revision: 1101516 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1101516&view=rev >>> Log: >>> Move to using LinkedBlockingDeque for the queue of idle objects. >> Definitely simpler, cleaner code, but seems there will be no easy >> way to enable fairness and some badly "unfair" stuff can happen when >> clients get instances under maintenance. In theory, an unlucky >> client could wait forever. Do we have any data on how "unfair" >> LinkedBlockingDeque can be? ArrayBlockingQueue is an alternative >> that does support fairness; but then I guess we lose LIFO/FIFO >> control and probably performance. Any ideas how we could get >> fairness, or at least some control over fairness to work? Another >> thing to think about is whether clients are better off waiting for >> the state change on instances under maintenance than getting back in >> line for the next available instance. (I now see the fairness TODO >> in TestGOP :) > > After looking quickly at the Harmony code for LinkedBlockingDeque, > we may be able to solve both the 1.6 problem and fairness by > bringing that source in and just making the ReentrantLock that it > uses configurable to be either fair or not (as ArrayBlockingQueue > does). Might be naive, but might work.
I like it. A lot. Great idea. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
