Re: MINA3.0 recommended

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 18/08/2017 à 15:54, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> I don't have the code in front of me, but are you saying that the
> modification of the Write Queue is no longer concurrent?  Possibly the
> Write Queue is a concurrent data structure and the synchronize mechanism is
> no longer required.  It seems odd that someone would remove concurrency
> from that critical section.

Please check the answer on teh dev@mina.a.o mailing list.

-- 
Emmanuel Lecharny

Symas.com
directory.apache.org

Re: MINA3.0 recommended

[Jonathan Valliere]

I don't have the code in front of me, but are you saying that the
modification of the Write Queue is no longer concurrent?  Possibly the
Write Queue is a concurrent data structure and the synchronize mechanism is
no longer required.  It seems odd that someone would remove concurrency
from that critical section.

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:41 PM, 胡阳  wrote:

> Hi guys:
>
>  I read the source code of MINA3.0M2. The style of the code is
> very good, the structure is clear, the design is concise and efficient,
> especially the use of Selector is unexpected. However, the
> enqueueWriteRequest method and the processWrite method in the
> AbstractNioSession are somewhat flawed.
>
> I see the source code in the enqueueWriteRequest method was originally
> "synchronized (writeQueue)", but was commented out, personal speculation
> may be the author feel that this treatment will affect performance.
>
> My approach is to use CAS to ensure memory visibility and atomic, see I
> see the startSync, finishSync method, feeling that this may be more secure
> after some of the performance will not lose too much.
>
> A little personal humble opinion.
>

Re: MINA3.0 recommended

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Replying on dev@mina.a.o. Thanks to avoid cross posting in the future :-)


Le 18/08/2017 à 05:41, 胡阳 a écrit :
> Hi guys:
>  I read the source code of MINA3.0M2. The style of the code is very 
> good, the structure is clear, the design is concise and efficient, especially 
> the use of Selector is unexpected. However, the enqueueWriteRequest method 
> and the processWrite method in the AbstractNioSession are somewhat flawed.
> I see the source code in the enqueueWriteRequest method was originally 
> "synchronized (writeQueue)", but was commented out, personal speculation may 
> be the author feel that this treatment will affect performance.
> My approach is to use CAS to ensure memory visibility and atomic, see I see 
> the startSync, finishSync method, feeling that this may be more secure after 
> some of the performance will not lose too much.
> A little personal humble opinion.

-- 
Emmanuel Lecharny

Symas.com
directory.apache.org