On 10/8/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which methods do you actually need? > > If you only need BCodec, then that (and Base64 which it calls) look to > be thread-safe, so you only need to instantiate it once for each > different charset.
Yes, I sort of figured that out for myself already when I first started the conversation with Henri. Now thanks for your help, I got another pair of eyes confirming this. So I am good in my case. But all the discussion has been more about the "in general" case. I just feel that, 1. Codec as a commons library, it should not be this hard to find out about information like this. It should be either this or that, "find out for yourself" is no good situation. As someone else pointed out earlier, we could use a better documentation. 2. It'd be nice for the biz method implementations to be thread safe (Ideally in a high performance manner as a value add-on of using a commons brand library such that user doesn't have to be too creative as some of the suggestions given in this discussion to achieve performance). Most of them may already be thread safe. And as it seems agreed by all that it's not hard to make them that way if not. Thanks to all for your help! -Q > > On 08/10/2007, Qingtian Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The SLA of the project I am working on is 2000 transactions per > > second. And I need to decode a 1K string on each request..... > > > > -Q > > > > > > > > On 10/8/07, Will Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ya know. Just to put this in a little perspective. > > > > > > These objects are pretty small (QCodec has only two members in it), and > > > have practically no instantiation cost. Instantiating these and quickly > > > throwing them out is probably not such a bad idea, and may give you > > > better performance that doing anything with ThreadLocal. Java VMs are > > > fairly well tuned for dealing with short-lived, small objects (which > > > these are). > > > > > > I can't imagine that many people are using thousands of these per > > > request, probably, more on the order of one or two a request? > > > > > > --Will > > > > > > James Carman wrote: > > > > Try using a ThreadLocal variable to store your Encoder/Decoder that > > > > you need to be thread safe. > > > > > > > > On 10/8/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 08/10/2007, Will Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> David J. Biesack wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:01:02 +0200 > > > >>>>> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schaible?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> The java.util.concurrent backport > > > >>>>>> http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/ runs on 1.3, for just this > > > >>>>>> kind of use. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> I know this, but I doubt that we wanna start to depend Apache > > > >>>>> common components on it ;-) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> Agreed; I, like you, was merely suggesting to what Commons consumers > > > >>>> might do to deal with non-threadsafe codecs. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> Might seem like a silly question, but has anyone found anything that > > > >>> looks like a threading issue in Codec? > > > >>> > > > >> Yes - QCodec has a public method that sets an instance variable (see > > > >> my comments on CODEC-55). > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> The code is pretty simple. I did a quick look through the code, and > > > >>> it > > > >>> seemed like everything was pretty thread safe. It looks like you > > > >>> should > > > >>> be O.K. as long as: > > > >>> 1) You don't change the parameters to a codec while it's running, > > > >>> e.g. changing charsets, etc. > > > >>> > > > >> See above. > > > >> > > > >> Having said that, I think it would not be too difficult to fix the > > > >> classes so that they are thread-safe. Most of the ones I looked at > > > >> could even be made invariant. > > > >> > > > >> So their thread-safety would only depend on any external calls they > > > >> made; this could presumably be fixed by providing synchronised > > > >> versions as suggested earlier. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> 2) You should not use a MessageDigest returned by DigestUtils by > > > >>> multiple threads. This should be clear given the API (it's a SUN api) > > > >>> > > > >>> It also seems to me that the difference between code that you can > > > >>> trust > > > >>> as being thread safe, and code you cannot trust as being thread safe > > > >>> has > > > >>> a lot to do with whether it is tested for thread safety. Seems to me > > > >>> like another way of helping out here would be to build concurrency > > > >>> tests > > > >>> for whichever APIs you are interested using on multiple threads. Not > > > >>> sure where we would put them yet, but seems like the only way to > > > >>> assure > > > >>> thread-safety (especially if we could get someone to volunteer running > > > >>> them on a big beefy multi-proc machine :). > > > >>> > > > >> Indeed. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>>> - Jörg > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
