>
> Hi David,
>
> Ok, I don't involve with source code.
> Just say we have boss_cache process uses cache application. cache
> application has 1 gen_server, it handle GET/SET/DELETE message (gets key,
> returns value; set {key, value} entry; delete key).
> There are 2 solutions:
>
> 1. boss_cache process send message to cache application directly.
>
> 2. boss_cache process creates poolboy supervisor, its children are
> poolboy workers.
> boss_cache sends mesages to poolboy, it checks out worker. The worker
> sends message to cache application. Poolboy checks in the worker.
>
> CB is using (2) solution. Is (2) better than (1) ?
> For asynchronous SET/DELETE message, obviously we don't need poolboy.
> For synchronous GET message, we send message with timeout.
> As Even mentioned in
> roadmap<https://github.com/ChicagoBoss/ChicagoBoss/wiki/Roadmap#wiki-goal-5-performancescalability-testing>,
>
> he uses poolbooy to resolve bottleneck issue. Maybe I don't understand
> poolboy implementation ?
>
> Regards,
> Cuong Th.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ChicagoBoss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chicagoboss.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chicagoboss/b9d2f206-0f85-49a9-8226-d6894f72e3c5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
