You are right,
Patch was just about quick fix before the more impacting fix.
Here are my propositions regarding this more impacting fix:
- Add an option to make conc download use or not cookie, default value
will be false.
- In AsyncSampler make a Clone with current cookies of Parent
CookieManager (the one that is calling Executor) and store it in ThreadLocal
- Change HttpSamplerBase#getCookieManager to retrieve first in Thread
Local then in instance
- If option is true, when reading res in Future<HTTPSampleResult> loop,
reinject cookies inside ParentCookie otherwise ignore them
Regards
Philippe
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:29 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2011 13:14, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Sebb,
> > Do you want me to provide a patch with ConcurrentHashMap where I will
> have
> > to handle null keys and values (not same behaviour as HashMap) or we
> forget
> > about this approach ?
>
> I don't think we have yet decided how best to handle concurrent downloads.
>
> e.g. should they even be setting cookies?
>
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.moua...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >> Just a little update on my test.
> >> I added a clear and gc before each Map instanciation and results are
> >> different:
> >>
> >> - HashMapput:645
> >> - ConcurrentHashMapput:832
> >> - ConcurrentReaderHashMapput:620
> >> - HashMap get:17
> >> - ConcurrentHashMap get:32
> >> - ConcurrentReaderHashMap get:60
> >>
> >>
> >> So it kind of closes the debate, sorry for disturbance.
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> public class TestMap {
> >>
> >> public static void main(String[] args) {
> >> StopWatch timer = new StopWatch();
> >>
> >> Map map = new HashMap();
> >> testPut(timer, map, "HashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >>
> >> map.clear();
> >> System.gc();
> >>
> >> map = new ConcurrentHashMap();
> >> testPut(timer, map, "ConcurrentHashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >>
> >> map.clear();
> >> System.gc();
> >>
> >> map = new ConcurrentReaderHashMap();
> >> testPut(timer, map, "ConcurrentReaderHashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >>
> >>
> >> map.clear();
> >> System.gc();
> >>
> >> map = new HashMap();
> >> testGet(timer, map, "HashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >>
> >> map.clear();
> >> System.gc();
> >>
> >> map = new ConcurrentHashMap();
> >> testGet(timer, map, "ConcurrentHashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >>
> >> map.clear();
> >> System.gc();
> >>
> >> map = new ConcurrentReaderHashMap();
> >> testGet(timer, map, "ConcurrentReaderHashMap");
> >> timer.reset();
> >> }
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @param timer
> >> */
> >> private static void testGet(StopWatch timer, Map map, String type) {
> >> timer.start();
> >> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
> >> map.get(i);
> >> }
> >> timer.stop();
> >> System.out.println(type+" get:"+timer.getTime());
> >> }
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @param timer
> >> */
> >> private static void testPut(StopWatch timer, Map map, String type) {
> >> timer.start();
> >> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
> >> map.put(i,i);
> >> }
> >> timer.stop();
> >> System.out.println(type+"put:"+timer.getTime());
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3 October 2011 12:15, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> >>> > On 02.10.2011 23:17, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>> >> Ok, hope we can do the same.
> >>> >
> >>> > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLBEANS-447
> >>> >
> >>> > We are not the only people, who doubt it's correct to include that
> class
> >>> ...
> >>> >
> >>> > There was also a discussion some time ago in another ASF project,
> >>> > because the Sun license which is cited by Doug Lea has a "no use in
> >>> > nuclear facilities clause", which make it non-usable as an Open
> Source
> >>> > license.
> >>> >
> >>> > It looks like we are stuck here.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, apart from the binary option which brings in lots of unneeded
> code.
> >>>
> >>> > And the mentioning of the Harmony class in the above cited issue is a
> >>> > red herring. Diffing it with the JDK 5 standard ConcurrentHashMap
> shows
> >>> > little difference, so I doubt it will be much faster (though I didn't
> >>> > inspect the delta in detail).
> >>>
> >>> I think the Harmony class was only mentioned as a means of supporting
> >>> Java 1.4, not as an alternative faster implementation.
> >>>
> >>> >> I must say I don't understand why ConcurrentReaderHashMap is not in
> >>> JDK.
> >>> >
> >>> > There's a discussion list for JSR166 (the concurrency stuff lead by
> Doug
> >>> > Lea) mentioned on the JSR 166 page maintained by Doug Lea. So maybe
> you
> >>> > can post a technical question there (what's the right class that
> solve
> >>> > the following problem ... and doesn't have sun licensing
> restrictions).
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> >
> >>> > Rainer
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@jakarta.apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cordialement.
> >> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
