All this parallelism thing is overrated, and in web apps in particular, it's pretty irrelevant. Web apps already use parallelism: requests are handled in parallel. This is the kind of thing that server vendors must worry about, so that we don't.
The more CPUs/cores you have, the more simultaneous users you'll be able to handle. And, if you don't have that many users, you won't need this kind of optimization either. Some very specific applications need parallel processing, but they will need parallelism in the backend (parallel search, raytracing, scientific calculations/simulations....), not while generating HTML. Besides, this kind of fork/join processing has its own overhead, both in CPU cycles and in code complexity. Not worth it. Tetsuo On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Andrea Del Bene <adelb...@ciseonweb.it> wrote: > My fault Martin, I have not explained well myself. I try to summarize what I > wanted to say: > > -Java 7 introduces some tools to implement Fork/Join parallelism ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork-join_queue ) > -Should we adopt this pattern? Is Wicket ready for implementing such a > pattern? > > Render phase is probably the most time-expensive part of Wicket. Do you > think it could be splitted in subtasks? > For example it would be nice if a page could apply Fork/Join parallelism to > render its children components. > > >> I'm saying only that JDK7 based solutions should be in a separate >> module and pluggable. >> If my application runs on JDK7 then I can replace the default >> functionalityX (based on JDK5/6) with the improved one (based on >> JDK7). >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Andrea Del Bene<adelb...@ciseonweb.it> >> wrote: >>> >>> Well, I wasn't expecting a rapid or easy adoption of JDK7, but I think >>> that >>> is useful starting to explore how to parallelize some of the stages of >>> Wicket's rendering pipeline. This could lead to a strong performance gain >>> in >>> the future, with adoption of JDK7 or using a parallel programming >>> library. >>>> >>>> You know that Wicket still uses JDK 1.5 (not even 1.6) because many >>>> users still use JDK1.5 and cannot upgrade to the newer. >>>> So any improvements based on JDK7 should be out of wicket-core. They >>>> can be plugged but the default impl should be 1.5 based. >>>> For example you can create ModificationWatcher based on NIO2 but it >>>> will in wicket-jdk7 module (or similar) or in wicketstuff project. >>>> >>>> For Wicket 1.6 we can move to JDK6 but this will be discussed later. >>>> Usage of JDK7 for frameworks is not very close. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Bruno Borges<bruno.bor...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Some internals of Wicket don't use collections. Take for instance >>>>> ResourceNameIterator. >>>>> >>>>> But certainly there are some things that can be used, like the new File >>>>> watching API. >>>>> >>>>> *Bruno Borges* >>>>> www.brunoborges.com.br >>>>> +55 21 76727099 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Andrea Del >>>>> Bene<adelb...@ciseonweb.it>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know it could sound a bit premature, but hasanyone starting to think >>>>>> how >>>>>> improve Wicket with the new JDK? I think that the new concurrency and >>>>>> collections API could help to speed up Wicket. >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone run some tests? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> > >
