Le Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:50:17 +0100, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Steve Ulrich wrote: > >> Julien Vermillard wrote > >> > >> Thanks forgot ConcurrentHashMap :) > >> What's the methods you need ? putIfAbsent(K key, V value) perhaps ? > >> > > > > Yes, that's a good example when you want to fill an attribute on > > demand. But maybe it's ok to let the user synchronize on a higher > > level and if you are using an OrderedThreadPool, most of the > > possbile synchronisation issues are gone. > Using a ConcurrentHashMap is covering any situation, at no cost (or > barely noticeable). > > One thing we must keep in mind : MINA won't be a bottleneck in most > of the case. Squeezing a few nano seconds from core is probably a > waste of energy, compared to having a simple, powerful, documented > API. > > Not saying we must code like pigs, but my own experience with MINA in > Directory is that MINA count for less than 3% of the server's time > when heaviily loaded... > Perhaps it's ADS the pig ? ;) well I never faced a situation where I needed to optimize MINA code, but showing good perf number is a good marketing point... but I agree API first. Julien
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
