On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Sagara Gunathunga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Afkham Azeez <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No from day 1, we have decided that GW & MSF4J will use the same Netty >> transport component so that the config file will be the same as well as >> improvements made to that transport will be automatically available for >> both products. So now at least for MSF4J, we have issues in using the Netty >> transport in its current state, so we have to fix those issues. >> > > Reuse of same config files and components provide an advantage to us as > the F/W developers/maintainers but my question was what are the benefits > grant to end users of MSF4J through Carbon transport ? > We are writing MSF4J and the rest of the platform. Not someone else. As such we have to keep them consistent. For end users our target has to be to give the best performance possible. > I don't think we can compromise performance numbers for a reason that is > more important for F/W maintainers than end users, IMHO if we continue to > use Carbon transport at least it should perform as same level as vanilla > Netty. > There's no reason why that cannot be the case. Can't we keep Disruptor while improve performance of Carbon transport ? > Disruptor is a technique to make things more performant not less performant. We have to figure out what's wrong and fix it - not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sanjiva. -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, CEO & Chief Architect; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: [email protected]; office: (+1 650 745 4499 | +94 11 214 5345) x5700; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 408 466 5099; voip: +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/; twitter: @sanjiva Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
