Re: svn commit: r385254 - in /directory/trunks/mina/core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/filter/codec: ProtocolCodecFactory.java ProtocolCodecFilter.java demux/DemuxingProtocolCodecFactory.java demux/MessageDecoderFactory.java demux/MessageEncoderFacto

[peter royal]

On Mar 12, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: Because of datagram transport and pluggable thread pool, we have to retain the synchronization.  Datagram doesn't become a problem if DIRMINA-162 (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-162 ) is resolved.  WRT non-leader-followers thread pool, it apparently is a problem. The question would be 'do we really need pluggable thread pool?' or 'does an ordinary thread pool outperform a leader-followers thread pool seriously?'  Robert told us an ordinary TP performs 25% better than a LFTP, but it might be just because encoding is not pooled. Is it really specific to the type of thread pool? I attached a pluggable implementation to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-184 , and retained the ordering of events while using a ThreadPoolExecutor..  -pete --  [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://fotap.org/~osi

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature