On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The improvement in performance is impressive. What is the contribution > made by the use of the CopyOnWriteArrayList? CopyOnWriteArrayList is ideal for situations when the following are all true: - reads are frequent - writes are rare - reads and writes happen concurrently This is exactly the scenario for logger's handlers. Each logged message results in a call to getHandlers() for the logger itself and for each of its parent loggers. The handlers list changes rarely: at startup only for typical apps. And it needs to be concurrent, because the logger API promises thread safety. > This would be our first dependency on util.concurrent from the logging > module, and if the benefit is small then I'd prefer to see reduced > coupling between the modules rather than a small improvement in > performance. > I don't think that the increased coupling really hurts us. Even if a project adopts only our logging module, such a project will presumably also have its own java.util.concurrent module. What is the smallest useful set of modules that we should declare are > necessary for a runtime, so expect inter-module dependencies are ok; and > which ones are always going to be optional/left behind in smaller > runtimes? etc. > How do you feel about saying the core is "LUUUUUUUNI" ? - lang - util - util.concurrent.* - util.jar - util.regex - util.logging - util.prefs - util.zip - net - io This feels like a good fit to me, particularly since the RI exposes API interdependencies between these packages.
