It looks to already be configurable, e.g. you could call the same method to update the value from the thread running the reactor, perhaps in the onReactorInit() handler. That said, I'm not sure youd would normally want to, except maybe to increase it, which is presumably not what you were thinking here when asking.
My limited understanding of it is that the timeout should only really have an effect when the reactor thinks it has nothing else to do, with the value dictating how long the reactor awaits something new to do, e.g new data arriving to give it work, before it fires off another quiesced event. As such I would guess that in this case the reactor is either incorrect in thinking that it has nothing to do, or perhaps isn't being used in the intended/required fashion (see sub-thread from Ken's mail). Robbie On 25 February 2016 at 17:45, Andrew Buckley <and...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Ah, thanks Robbie. Yes I do now notice the 3141ms timeout inside run(). Are > there plans to make that timeout configurable? At least from my point of > view, 3 seconds is quite a long time to wait between calling send and the > action actually being performed, and applications using the Reactor do suffer > a bit of a blow in performance because of this. > > Thanks, > -Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 3:47 AM > To: d...@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proton-J Reactor sending delay > > On 13 February 2016 at 00:28, Andrew Buckley <and...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I'm using the reactor with Proton-J and have noticed that there is a 2-4 >> second delay between when I call send() on a particular link and when that >> transfer frame actually goes out. Is this expected behavior? If so, are >> there plans to improve on this? And if not, have you seen this in any other >> scenario and might you have any ideas what could be causing it? >> >> Thanks, >> -Andrew Buckley >> > > Hi Andrew, > > While im no expert on the reactor, I'd be surprised if that was expected, and > I can't say I'm aware of it being mentioned before. > > One thing that springs to mind from previous discussion [about proton-c > reactor] is that when the reactor has a particular thread dedicated to > running it, it sets a 3141ms timeout on its selector meaning it wakes up at > that period when it is 'quiesced' (has nothing to do). Seems like perhaps > that could be related given your note of 2-4sec. > > Do you have an example showing the behaviour? > > Robbie > > (added proton@ as well, in case anyone only paying attention there has > thoughts) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional > commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >
