Hi!
marc fleury wrote:
> > I asked Peter Jones on the RMI team about this (who wrote the MO code),
> > and have also talked to the JRockit JVM (the Swedish server JVM) guys
> > about this. Peter said that it wouldn't be a problem, and the JRockit
> > guy said something like "DO NOT CACHE *ANYTHING*! WAAAH! We can handle
> > that through garbage collection mgmt *MUCH* better than you can" Yes, he
> > was pretty upset about the general idea of Java code doing caching. He
> > didn't even understand why we wanted to use pools for the EJB's, because
> > it seems as though if the instantiation overhead is fairly small (i.e.
> > set*Context doesn't do much) you don't need a pool at all with newer
> > JVM's, since they are so good at memory management. That's the
> > impression I got anyway.
> >
> > So, I guess the answer is: yes, they behave nicely. :-)
>
> LOL since when do *you* believe marketing pitches :)))
:o) Hey, you know us ET's; we're a "bit" naive when it comes to people
lying/being not completely honest...
> hmmm that I am not so sure about... I mean that it is their selling point.
> We need to see that it is OK before we do away with ALL pools in jboss and
> EJB in general :))
>
> actually we could bench it and see.... hmmm a TODO I guess
Yes, that seems appropriate.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
