Actually use this one for TimeSchedulerImpl.java from part 2 for load test. only diff is that I have removed redundant printlns
The patches I have sent should work without problems on latest codebase. That is what I have tested on. Harmeet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harmeet Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Removing Scheduler dependency, refactoring service code > Part 2 for the scheduler. Here is an alternate scheduler implementation that > I have tested with as well. > > Nice thing about this one is that, it implements the scheduler contract and > uses JDK timer classes to do the task scheduling - java.util.Timer(Task). In > this case scheduled task being fire timeout trigger. > > If there are problems with scheduler implementations, one could have a > Scheduler implementation that is a hybrid of watchdog-timer ideas and is not > as heavy as watchdog. > > Check it out... > > Harmeet > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harmeet Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:43 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Removing Scheduler dependency, refactoring service code > > > > Here is the code. Danny/Noel/Peter if you could test this for load. > > > > This post has the right way to use scheduler for James fix. > > > > The watchdog approach calls for one thread per handler to watch for > timeout. > > So per connection there will be 2 threads - Handler and Watchdog. Although > > the Thread will mostly be in wait-notify state, it is still very heavy and > > unavailable. > > In this approach there is a scheduler per handler, one additional thread. > > This will allow James to scale more smoothly. > > > > I have tested this with cornerstone scheduler and after replacing > > cornerstone scheduler with another implementaion that I have been using. > > > > It is entirely possible that watchdog approach may be better, but by > looking > > at the thread semantics it would be a surprise to me. > > > > I suggest taking this POP3 implementation and the one Peter has sent out > and > > doing a load comparison. > > > > There is nothing better than 2 developers pushing their point of view and > > the gain is to be had by all. :-) > > > > Harmeet > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TimeSchedulerImpl.java
Description: Binary data
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
