Can you make it a configurable option with the default being a synchronized hashmap?
----- Original Message ---- From: Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@mina.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:07:46 PM Subject: Re: Possible optimization? On 6/20/07, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is great information. I would like to see some test cases that > support your information. In addition to the test cases, what > environment/IDE are you performing this research on? > > Thanks and great work! I think Gaston's comment is correct; ConcurrentHashMap takes up much more memory than sychronized hashmap. We employed ConcurrentHashMap for better concurrency, but we need balance between memory consumption considering how concurrently the attributes will be accessed. I guess most applications won't need concurrent hash map. WDYT? Shall we revert back to HashMap? Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
