great,
> scenario. The PooledInvoker is 300% faster than the default
> RMI Invoker.
>
> 2nd scenario:
> invokor is 30% faster than the default RMI based invoker.
> P.S. This code is extremely more simple than the Trunk
> Invoker and I've been told that the Trunk Invoker provides no
> perfor
> > scenario. The PooledInvoker is 300% faster than the default
> > RMI Invoker.
> >
> > 2nd scenario:
> > invokor is 30% faster than the default RMI based invoker.
>
> > P.S. This code is extremely more simple than the Trunk
> > Invoker and I've been told that the Trunk Invoker provides no
> > p
torsdagen den 14 november 2002 kl 19.43 skrev marc fleury:
Plus the name sucks. Let's stir clear of 'cute names', PooledInvoker
clearly describes what it is.
amrc f
Isn't 'amrc' a cute name :)
/L
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: T
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:jboss-development-admin@;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocatio
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
> become a requirement for the other invokers??
I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
invoker. It is a nice featur
> Could a InvocationResponse object be used instead? Or, if you had detyped
> invocations, couldn't you just pass a callback object along with
> the request
> via a client-side interceptor? Just curious...why do you need
> bi-directional invocations? Acknowledgements? Callbacks? Is David using
> > Could a InvocationResponse object be used instead? Or, if you
> had detyped
> > invocations, couldn't you just pass a callback object along with
> > the request
> > via a client-side interceptor? Just curious...why do you need
> > bi-directional invocations? Acknowledgements? Callbacks? Is
> > - Thread pooling (same as the PooledInvoker).
>
> When I looked at code it looked like there still was a thread
> being spawned
> for each invocation. Sure, when you hand off the message, there is a pool
> there, but there seemed to be a thread spawn before this. This
> needs to be
> avoided.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:jboss-development-admin@;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocatio
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
> > become a requirement for the other invokers??
>
> I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
> communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
I might have said
>
> > Perhaps.. I've not double checked the pool code. The first time an
> > invocation comes though shure, but the second time, the pooled
> > thread should
> > get reused.
> >
>
> Please make sure. It didn't read that way when I looked at it last.
>
I'll double check.
> >
> > Yep.. But this
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote: > Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this > become a requirement for the other invokers??I completely disagree. There is no reason server to clientcommunication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
> become a requirement for the other invokers??
I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
I migh
.
Scott StarkChief Technology
OfficerJBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From:
Victor Langelo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:11
PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] new
PooledInvoker: speeds up
D]]On Behalf Of
Scott M StarkSent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 1:49
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
Re: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
It should be possible to route invocations over
the incoming channel, but it cannot be
a requirement. This does not imply the invoc
On Thursday 14 November 2002 10:57 am, Bill Burke wrote:
> ... Code is in 3.2 and head under
> server/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/pooled. If you want to know how to
> use this, look at the testsuite under pooled/ test.
Is there any chance that this PooledInvoker in 3.2 can fix my problem
with
ng to, but first look to make sure you
are closing your JMS connections.
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
> A. Dickey
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-de
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
> The Pooled Invoker pools threads up to a maximum limit, after that new
> threads are still created but are allowed to die after they service a
> request. (I guess I should block, but I didn't want to have a hard limit.)
Minor nitpick, but when you reach t
I use a LRU pool. Please see previous emails or examine code if you want
more details.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Adam
> Heath
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
2002 11:16 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new
PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
I
agree Scott (no public interface for bi-directionality). It will be
tricky to implement the bi-directional behavior if Invokers don't have a
bi-directional public interface. I wo
-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hiram ChirinoSent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:03
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
I
agree.. same socket bi-directionality is exotic and does not have to be in the
You should be able to
do the same with a trunk proxy.
Regards,
Hiram
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
BurkeSent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:57 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new
PooledInvoker: s
lf Of
Bill Burke
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
Why does the proxy object have to setup the callback channel on
deserialization? Just stuff the proxy in the invocation object as
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 03:39 PM, Emerson Cargnin - SICREDI
Serviços wrote:
I made some changes in the test in a way you can distinguish between
pooled and not pooled calls and with creating each proxy or not :
testPooledOldProxy(org.jboss.test.pooled.test.BeanStressTestCase)Succes
Re: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 03:39 PM, Emerson Cargnin - SICREDI
Serviços wrote:
> I made some changes in the test in a way you can distinguish between
> pooled and not pooled calls and with creating each proxy or not :
&
25 matches
Mail list logo
