Am 25.03.2011 04:32, schrieb dsimcha:
On 3/24/2011 10:31 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Well what can I say.. things can become more complex and you cannot
always say this is parallelism and this is concurrency ore something.
It's just nice when the libary does not get in the way when you are in a
situation where eg. throughput and responsiveness or whatever else
matter. Sometimes it can be a small change that can make or break the
deal.
Agreed. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, and I'm certainly willing to
make **small** changes even if they stretch the scope somewhat into
general concurrency. It's just that I don't want to make big changes,
especially if they will make the interface more complex, reduce
efficiency and/or lock me into certain implementations. (For example,
using a priority queue precludes supporting work stealing later without
breaking the priority feature.)
I agree, the proirities are things that can be important in some cases
but most of the time they are not really _necessary_ in that sense. And
maybe in most of those cases where someone would like to have them, the
suggestion by Michel to create a second thread pool with a different
priority may be just fine.
The more important aspect was the OOB part with the cached threads for
something like executeInNewThread. And even that is not a real deal-breaker.
