On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 14:11 -0400, Doug Herold wrote:
I am sorry I meant SingleThreaded. So you would think that this is a
bottle neck.
Unless your actions require heavy initialisation, implementing
ThreadSafe or not will only result in minor performance differences (if
you call multiple
Hi,
I have noticed that some of our programers are usingthreadsafe when creating a class for actions.
public class StudentSearchAction extends AbstractAction
implements SingleThreaded {
I read that you should never useSingleThreaded and that it was going to bedepreciated. Our server has a very
It is interesting that you say that they are using threadsafe and then
show an example that says SingleThreaded. These are not the same thing.
Look at http://excalibur.apache.org/developing/framework.html. Actions
only have a single act method so in most cases they should be able to
I am sorry I meant SingleThreaded. So you would think that this is a bottle neck.
On 6/2/06, Ralph Goers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is interesting that you say that they are using threadsafe and thenshow an example that says SingleThreaded.These are not the same thing.
Look at
If I have an action that is SingleThreaded and I have 2 clients logged in (2 sessions). Does one client have to wait on the other client's thread to finish or is the SingleThreaded per session.
On 6/2/06, Ralph Goers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is interesting that you say that they are using
On 02.06.2006 20:28, Doug Herold wrote:
If I have an action that is SingleThreaded and I have 2 clients logged
in (2
sessions). Does one client have to wait on the other client's thread to
finish or is the SingleThreaded per session.
You have to think of it as a pool. It is no problem as
Why would an action be pooled? Actions should, if at all possible, be
ThreadSafe. In this case there will only be one instance of the Action
and multiple threads can execute it concurrently. Since actions
generally only have one method this should be easy to achieve.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
