On 10/17/13 4:52 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: > Bela, do you really need to rename the thread? You already pass a name > argument to the Thread constructor, why not create the thread with the > "correct" name directly?
Correct, I'll change that. I used renameThreads() in the ctor out of convenience, but this names a new thread twice: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1719 > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Dennis Reed <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 10/17/2013 05:26 AM, Bela Ban wrote: > > The other thing to look at is the apparent cost of > Thread.setName(): if > > we cannot avoid thread many creations, we could experiment with *not* > > naming threads, although this is IMO not a good idea. > > I agree that not naming the threads is a bad idea. > > The thread names are vital for debugging -- both in log messages and in > thread dumps. > Not naming the threads would lose a whole lot of information. > > -Dennis > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > -- Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
