Jesse Wilson wrote:
So Regis and I disagree on the merit of maintaining indices. Actually
disagreeing on such things is generally healthy since mobile/Android prefers
simplicity and memory efficiency, whereas serverside prefers high
throughput. Yet I still feel that the index optimizations were
In message a43fbc6a0909301705i465f46cbye3f889218dcfc...@mail.gmail.com,
Jesse Wilson writes:
So Regis and I disagree on the merit of maintaining indices. Actually
disagreeing on such things is generally healthy since mobile/Android
prefers simplicity and memory efficiency, whereas serverside
Mark,
Thanks for hanging along with me on these changes, and also for the heads up
on Regis' holiday.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.comwrote:
I think there is usually quite a lot of overlap between the goals of memory
efficiency and high throughput.
In message a43fbc6a0910080958t19bb1c40h94389bbf6d3ba...@mail.gmail.com,
Jesse Wilson writes:
Mark,
Thanks for hanging along with me on these changes, and also for the
heads up on Regis' holiday.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.com
wrote:
[ snipped:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.comwrote:
If I was in your position I'd probably try to:
1) Revert the author removal or justify why I thought it made sense
to the upstream and do it in one big change. It looks like you
are doing this with
So Regis and I disagree on the merit of maintaining indices. Actually
disagreeing on such things is generally healthy since mobile/Android prefers
simplicity and memory efficiency, whereas serverside prefers high
throughput. Yet I still feel that the index optimizations were misguided,
Jesse Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Regis Xu (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
In my understanding, SelectorBenchmark.java try to simulate a real
scenario of using selector, so I picked benchmark from HARMONY-4879 which
*only* test Selector.selectNow(), the result:
svn + no
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Regis xu.re...@gmail.com wrote:
I think changes to the selected keys set doesn't help to show more
things.
Because there is no much difference in processSelectResult. And the reason
for maintaining readableFDs/writableFDs and mapping is avoiding O(num(keys))
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Regis Xu (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
In my understanding, SelectorBenchmark.java try to simulate a real
scenario of using selector, so I picked benchmark from HARMONY-4879 which
*only* test Selector.selectNow(), the result:
svn + no mapping
clients/active
Regis wrote:
Regis wrote:
Hi Jesse,
I proposed a serial of patches on JIRA, that combines part of work from
you, what are your options? Is it OK to commit them?
I have committed 0001-remove-SelectionKeyImpl.hasCode-equals-the-old-impl.patch
and 0002-synchronized-on-unmodifiableKeys.patch
Regis wrote:
Jesse Wilson (JIRA) wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12745221#action_12745221
]
Jesse Wilson commented on HARMONY-6312:
---
Jesse Wilson (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12745221#action_12745221 ]
Jesse Wilson commented on HARMONY-6312:
---
The patch
12 matches
Mail list logo
