Yep. That is why I used the *reduce* word. The AtomicLong is pretty optimized from what I can tell by looking at the source code. Of course doing something is more than doing nothing. ;) I'm not familiar with how hard/strong MINA is already optimized or the policy for optimizations so take my comment as coming from someone newbie.
Regards, -- Gato -----Original Message----- From: Trustin Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:24 PM To: dev@mina.apache.org Subject: Re: IoService question On 11/28/06, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is what I was thinking. the concurrent.atomic package is your friend > :) > > On 11/27/06, Gaston Dombiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Guys, > > > > I'm 100% new to MINA but if you are using Java 1.5 as a prerequisite > > then you can try using AtomicLong or one of its sibling to reduce > > performance impact and at the same time ensure a thread safe solution. I thought about that, but using AtomicLong doesn't mean that there's no performance penalty. We will have to do performance test. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
