On 26.05.14 22:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > the point is putIfAbsent is costly but globally once (can be done > concurrently but this is ignorable at runtime). Only important thing is to > ensure then the system uses a single instance.
Right, but what if the instance creates a file, socket or similar? If we want to do this we need to postpone all costly initialization into an initialize() method. In any case, I think this could simplified a lot by removing all separate managers. > The other point shocking me a bit is you need everything needs to be > processed sequentially. For a cache you globally want the last value. So > then you slow down the process cause you were not preempted. I'm open to suggestions on how to solve this. Feel free to experiment with JCSConcurrentCacheAccessUnitTest to see the effects. A put *must* be finished before the cached object can be accessed. > I globally get the idea and we could use a LockFactory + ReentrantLock to > replace synchronized (would already be faster), this way we could even get > a NoLockFactory ;). I like the idea. It's certainly worth a try. My tests with locks did not show much improvement, though. Bye, Thomas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
