I'm curious to hear from you what your configuration and typical scenarios might be, as my experience was quite different. - What is the average call time? - How many concurrent calls have you tried? - Was keep alive enabled (i.e. sessionCache in asyncweb client)?
Additional information would be helpful for us to understand the situation better... Thanks. Regards, Sangjin On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM, atul atri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We tried it on 1.0 branch version code. > Sorry, but this is not performing so well and taking more time per request > processing than commons HttpClient. > > Regards, > Atul Atri. > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Sangjin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I tried out the commons HttpClient (with NIO extensions) some time ago, > and > > the asyncweb client compares favorably against it. That's what got me > > interested in this in the first place. :) You might want to try out the > > 1.0 > > branch version. We're using it in a real production situation, and it > > works > > quite well and can go up to thousands of requests/sec fairly comfortably. > > Thanks, > > Sangjin > > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:40 AM, atul atri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > We are developing a network based application that requires high > > throughput > > > as high as possible. Currently we are using > > > org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient for client side. > > > I want to know if asyncweb/client perform better than > > > org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpClient ? > > > > > > Does any one has carried out such test??? > > > > > > Thanks && Regards > > > Atul Atri. > > > > > >
