Hi Romain,
On 24.05.14 20:16, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> basically I respected all remarks, only pendings ones are:
>
> 1) modules
Ok, right now, I see the following modules
- commons-jcs-core
- commons-jcs-jcache
- commons-jcs-jcache-extras
- commons-jcs-jcache-openjpa
- commons-jcs-tck-tests
Responses inline.
2014-05-25 15:03 GMT+02:00 Thomas Vandahl :
> Hi Romain,
>
> On 24.05.14 20:16, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > basically I respected all remarks, only pendings ones are:
> >
> > 1) modules
>
> Ok, right now, I see the following modules
> - commons-jcs-core
> - commons-jcs-jcache
On 5/25/14, 8:18 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Responses inline.
>
>
> 2014-05-25 15:03 GMT+02:00 Thomas Vandahl :
>
>> Hi Romain,
>>
>> On 24.05.14 20:16, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> basically I respected all remarks, only pendings ones are:
>>>
>>> 1) modules
>> Ok, right now, I see the follo
On 25.05.14 17:18, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Extras is a set of useful basic classes for JCache usage. OpenJPA is JCache
> support for L2 cache in openjpa.
>
> The goal is to make what we propose with jcache module as usable as
> possible and avoid glue code as much as possible in application co
On 25.05.14 17:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 5/25/14, 8:18 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> And please consider reacting to Phils comment on the removal of
>>> synchronized keywords. It took years to pinpoint the race issues in the
>>> JCS code. I don't claim the current situation to be perfect but
the point is putIfAbsent is costly but globally once (can be done
concurrently but this is ignorable at runtime). Only important thing is to
ensure then the system uses a single instance.
Issue with sychronized is that it doesn't scale. If you go upper to 10
threads you are slow.
The other point
On 26.05.14 22:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> the point is putIfAbsent is costly but globally once (can be done
> concurrently but this is ignorable at runtime). Only important thing is to
> ensure then the system uses a single instance.
Right, but what if the instance creates a file, socket or s
2014-05-27 21:13 GMT+02:00 Thomas Vandahl :
> On 26.05.14 22:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > the point is putIfAbsent is costly but globally once (can be done
> > concurrently but this is ignorable at runtime). Only important thing is
> to
> > ensure then the system uses a single instance.
>
> R
Found an IBM article showing globally what I experimented:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp10264/
So I'll first add ReentrantLock where synchronized was used, then bench it
again and see depending performances if we need the LockFactory abstraction
or not.
Does it work for you
