[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Hi Berin, > > > > > > I just got to testing the new version of the pooling in > > CVS. I got the same > > > results as I did with my version, so that should be OK :) > > > > Faster or slower? I think the fact that we are not releasing > > and reclaiming > > locks or continual looping helps bring our efficiency up. > > I didn't look at the performance an sich. The fact that it's stable is more > important to us ATM than the fact that it's fast. But it would only be > logical that it's faster, since indeed there's less synchronizing overhead.
Fair enough. I am concerned with _both_. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
