I think that a generic interface should be used (As previously stated
Map for example).
>From one side you have a default with each version.
On the other side , if during some time we'll find out that the choice
is not optimal it's an easy switch.
Adding a factory/configuration adds an unneeded com
Trustin Lee wrote:
On 6/21/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> What about putting the option in IoService?
>
> IoAcceptor acceptor = ..;
> acceptor.setSessionAttributeMapFactory(new MyMapFactory());
>
> I thought about putting it to IoSess
since AbstractMap implements Map, I would go with the Map interface. There
is more room for possibilities (flexibility) there I think. I am partial to
the "programming to interfaces" approach.
On 6/20/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/21/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On 6/21/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> What about putting the option in IoService?
>
> IoAcceptor acceptor = ..;
> acceptor.setSessionAttributeMapFactory(new MyMapFactory());
>
> I thought about putting it to IoSessionConfig but the ma
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
What about putting the option in IoService?
IoAcceptor acceptor = ..;
acceptor.setSessionAttributeMapFactory(new MyMapFactory());
I thought about putting it to IoSessionConfig but the map can't be
changed once its created.
good place for it. als
On 6/21/07, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That certainly would work. Since you want a framework to be as flexible as
possible.
On 6/20/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Rob Butler wrote:
> > Can you make it a configurable option with the default
That certainly would work. Since you want a framework to be as flexible as
possible.
On 6/20/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Rob Butler wrote:
> Can you make it a configurable option with the default being a
> synchronized hashmap?
yeah, i was thinking
On Jun 20, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Rob Butler wrote:
Can you make it a configurable option with the default being a
synchronized hashmap?
yeah, i was thinking about this as well.. Maybe we just need a
MapFactory that's used to create the structure hidden in the
IoSession.. then people can plug i
I could see how that could be a problem ;)
On 6/20/07, James Im <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Webb wrote:
>Trustin,
>
>Not sure I understand the visibility issue. What do you mean? Are you
>talking about visibility of method/fields or licensing?
the visibility of the hashmap. It seems that
Mark Webb wrote:
Trustin,
Not sure I understand the visibility issue. What do you mean? Are you
talking about visibility of method/fields or licensing?
the visibility of the hashmap. It seems that the hashmap has some
visibility problem if you read the comments in the blog:
http://blogs.azu
Trustin,
Not sure I understand the visibility issue. What do you mean? Are you
talking about visibility of method/fields or licensing?
As for Cliff's JavaOne presentation, take out the asterisks from the URL:
developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/2007/pdf/TS-2862.pdf
On 6/20/07, Trustin
ee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 June 2007 09:48 AM
> To: dev@mina.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Possible optimization?
>
> On 6/20/07, 向秦贤 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Not HashMap, there is a cadicates.
> > http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/03/
Can you make it a configurable option with the default being a synchronized
hashmap?
- Original Message
From: Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:07:46 PM
Subject: Re: Possible optimization?
On 6/20/07, Mark Webb <[EMAIL
> Dawie Malan
>
I think it's more a matter of memory footprint than a speed
issue.
Julien
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Trustin Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 June 2007 09:48 AM
> To: dev@mina.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Possible optimization?
>
>
awie Malan
>
I think it's more a matter of memory footprint than a speed
issue.
Julien
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Trustin Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 June 2007 09:48 AM
> To: dev@mina.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Possible optimization?
>
> On 6/
This structure seems to be really fast. It doesn't compare memory usage.
http://developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/j1sessn.jsp?sessn=TS-2862&yr=2007&track=5
http://developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/2007/pdf/TS-2862.pdf
Trustin Lee wrote:
On 6/20/07, ÃòÃÃÃà <[EMAIL PROTECT
t: Re: Possible optimization?
On 6/20/07, 向秦贤 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Not HashMap, there is a cadicates.
> http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/03/a_nonblocking_h.html
Sounds interesting, but we need to address a possible visibility issue.
> Its javaone speach:
> d
On 6/20/07, 向秦贤 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Not HashMap, there is a cadicates.
http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/03/a_nonblocking_h.html
Sounds interesting, but we need to address a possible visibility issue.
Its javaone speach:
developers.sun.com/learning/*javaone*online/2007/pdf/TS
Hi,
Not HashMap, there is a cadicates.
http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/03/a_nonblocking_h.html
Its javaone speach:
developers.sun.com/learning/*javaone*online/2007/pdf/TS-2862.pdf
cliff also provide a library:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/high-scale-lib
2007/6/20, peter royal <[EMA
Regards,
-- Gato
-Original Message-
From: James Im [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:44 PM
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible optimization?
I think it might be a good change BUT you didn't say how big was the
benefit of this change on memory consumpti
I think it might be a good change BUT you didn't say how big was the
benefit of this change on memory consumption. Could you tell us how much
memory the JVM was using before and after the change under the same load?
Gaston Dombiak wrote:
Hey,
We are opening 60K concurrent connections to Openf
On Jun 19, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
WDYT? Shall we revert back to HashMap?
Collections.synchronizedMap( new HashMap() ) sounds good :)
-pete
--
(peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 6/20/07, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this is great information. I would like to see some test cases that
support your information. In addition to the test cases, what
environment/IDE are you performing this research on?
Thanks and great work!
I think Gaston's comment is c
I think this is great information. I would like to see some test cases that
support your information. In addition to the test cases, what
environment/IDE are you performing this research on?
Thanks and great work!
On 6/19/07, Gaston Dombiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
We are opening 6
Hey,
We are opening 60K concurrent connections to Openfire and generating
some heap dumps to analyze memory consumption. And we found something
that really surprised us since we never heard about it. A very big part
of the total memory is being consumed by ConcurrentHashMaps. The
ConcurrentHash
25 matches
Mail list logo
