Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml
today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I don't see why it would perform worse than your internal c
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml
today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I don't see why it would perform worse than your internal connector
executor :)
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml
today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I don't see why it would perform worse than your internal connector
executor :)
I was comparing to the existing
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I don't see why it would perform worse than your internal connector
executor :)
I was comparing to the existing stack thread pool, :)
I tried
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I don't see why it would perform worse than your internal connector
executor :)
I tried to make the default implementation as basic as possible.
Let me know if you ha
I took the liberty and added the element to server.xml today.
It performs surprisingly well,
I tried to make the default implementation as basic as possible.
Let me know if you have any feedback.
Filip
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
