Jesus, Probably the most informative information is in this blog.
https://blogs.oracle.com/nashorn/entry/nashorn_multi_threading_and_mt <https://blogs.oracle.com/nashorn/entry/nashorn_multi_threading_and_mt> This example uses Executors but threads would work as well. I did a talk that looked at different methods to max out multithreading performance. A new engine per thread is the worst case. A new context per thread does much better. A new global per thread is the best while remaining thread safe. Cheers, — Jim > On Dec 6, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Jesus Luzon <jlu...@riotgames.com> wrote: > > Hey folks, > > I've tried many different ways of using Nashorn multithreaded based on what > I've found on the internet and I still can't get a single one to scale. > Even the most naive method of making many script engines with my script > tends to bottleneck itself when I have more than 10 threads invoking > functions. > > I'm using the following code to compile my script and > invocable.invokeFunction("transform", input) to execute: > >> static Invocable generateInvocable(String script) throws >> ScriptException { >> ScriptEngineManager manager = new ScriptEngineManager(); >> ScriptEngine engine = >> manager.getEngineByName(JAVASCRIPT_ENGINE_NAME); >> Compilable compilable = (Compilable) engine; >> final CompiledScript compiled = compilable.compile(script); >> compiled.eval(); >> return (Invocable) engine; >> } > > > The script I'm compiling is: > >> String script = "function transform(input) {" + >> "var result = JSON.parse(input);" + >> "response = {};\n" + >> "for (var i = 0; i < result.length; i++) {\n" + >> " var summoner = {};\n" + >> " summoner.id = result[i].id;\n" + >> " summoner.name = result[i].name;\n" + >> " summoner.profileIconId = result[i].profileIconId;\n" + >> " summoner.revisionDate = result[i].revisionDate;\n" + >> " summoner.summonerLevel = result[i].level;\n" + >> " response[summoner.id] = summoner;\n" + >> "}\n" + >> "result = response;" + >> "return JSON.stringify(result);" + >> "};"; > > > I've also tried other more scaleable ways to work with scripts > concurrently, but given that this is the most naive method where everything > is brand new and I still get slowness calling them concurrently I fear that > maybe I'm overlooking something extremely basic on my code. > > Thanks. > -Jesus Luzon
