> One more change ... and one I haven't had time to make. > > I would like to see the spooler change to have a single > thread reading from the spool, and use worker threads to run > the processors. That should simplify, if not eliminate, a > lot of the synchronization/locking issues.
One of my notes points to a JMS (ActiveMQ) based spoolmanager. Now that we added derby it would be also easier (ActiveMQ default db is Derby, too). I'm not sure how much work is needed for JMS compared to the patch to make the current spoolmanager single threaded. If feasible/"easy enough" do we like more the JMS solution? Should I investigate on this? Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
