[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OGNL-20?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13101013#comment-13101013
]
Simone Tripodi commented on OGNL-20:
------------------------------------
Sorry, I just figure out that I explained so bad to get wrong - English
improvement is still in my TODO list ;)
The key point is that the current implementation is justified by historical
reasons - first OGNL release date is the far '97 - and never changed since it
was working :)
Maurizio already did some performances tests, using different cache backend
implementations, which results have to be shared, as far as I remember the
current implementation was one of the faster if not the faster.
Anyway if you want to contribute with performances tests, you are more than
welcome, and thanks for sharing your thoughts!
> Performance - Replace synchronized blocks with ReentrantReadWriteLock
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OGNL-20
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OGNL-20
> Project: OGNL
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Environment: ALL
> Reporter: Greg Lively
>
> I've noticed a lot of synchronized blocks of code in OGNL. For the most part,
> these synchronized blocks are controlling access to HashMaps, etc. I believe
> this could be done far better using ReentrantReadWriteLocks.
> ReentrantReadWriteLock allows unlimited concurrent access, and single threads
> only for writes. Perfect in an environment where the ratio of reads is far
> higher than writes; which is typically the scenario for caching. Plus the
> access control can be tuned for reads and writes; not just a big
> synchronized{} wrapping a bunch of code.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
