I'm not sure... think David Jencks needs to answer that.
--jason
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Duh. I should have known that :)
That seems like the best policy... is there a reason we aren't
using that?
-dain
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Just a guess.... but I think the alternative it sot use the run as
caller, and just run the task in the current thread, instead o
blocking the current thread.
--jason
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
The changes in the configuration for the Executor in Java5
seem much better.
I did run into one issue with ThreadPoolExecutor... this has no
wait policy, and some discussion online related indicate that it
was not added to java.util.concurrent stuff because it was not
very safe or friendly todo... or something like that.
I was not sure exactly how to get around that and use the
standard policies, so I wrote a wait policy that does basically
the same thing (i think) as the wait policy for PooledExecutor.
Interesting. I suppose the alternative is to just create more
threads on demand which can really stress a server at the worst
time, when it is running out of resources.
-dain
