> > - Thread pooling (same as the PooledInvoker). > > When I looked at code it looked like there still was a thread > being spawned > for each invocation. Sure, when you hand off the message, there is a pool > there, but there seemed to be a thread spawn before this. This > needs to be > avoided. >
Perhaps.. I've not double checked the pool code. The first time an invocation comes though shure, but the second time, the pooled thread should get reused. > > - Connection sharing. Multiple invocations can be sent to the > > server at the > > same time. Sending an invocation down the socket does not stop other > > invocation from going down the pipe. > > Is this possible? Doesn't the socket get synchronized (and thus > serialized > invocations) when a lot of threads hit it? > Yep.. But this is good, if servicing requests has a delay in it.. You can sqeeze more requests into one socket. I need to make the connections pooled also so that a single socket does not get over-used. > > - Uses NIO if running under java 1.4, normal blocking IO if on 1.3 > > > > My performance testing did not show it was better than RMI. > Perhaps I was > > running a bad test, perhaps I need to add connection pooling so > that more > > than one socket is established from the client to the server. > Perhaps all > > this functionality is just adding too much overhead. > > > > I'll add the benchmark to the pooled test in the testsuite. It already > benchmarks RMI vs. Pooled. > thanks. > > Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should > > this become a > > requirement for the other invokers?? > > > > Could a InvocationResponse object be used instead? Or, if you had detyped > invocations, couldn't you just pass a callback object along with > the request > via a client-side interceptor? Just curious...why do you need > bi-directional invocations? Acknowledgements? Callbacks? Is David using > the bi-directional capability for Distributed Trans callbacks? The whole > point of the Invoker architecture is to detach the transport > layer from the > actual service. > The JMS server uses callbacks. Thats how it drives asynchronous message delivery. A normal RMI callback object cannot allways be used since the client may be behind a firewall. I want to be able to communicate with the client over the same socket that he established with the server. Make sense?? Regards, Hiram > Bill > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing > your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte > Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
