Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
you're of course right, I think I simply need to get rid of the thread local cache, and use the processor cache instead. do you have any idea of the performance penalty? I'd probably use a ConcurrentLinkedQueue or something instead of synchronized{processorCache}
There's a penalty already for using an executor (unfortunately). So there could be a check: if using an executor, then use a processor pool of some sort (a dumb synced stack could do it, but I don't know if it would be better or worse speed wise - maybe about the same since there's no read at all, only modifications of the "collection"), otherwise use the thread local. Maybe there could be a better solution, but it's probably the easy one.
I didn't think about this leak issue when I thought about supporting executors.
Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
