----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Removing Scheduler dependency, refactoring service code


> I ran the postal test for a little while against Harmeet's server with
this
> latest change.  It appeared to fix the known problem, right up until the
> point when his system died.  Don't know what the cause was.  IF this code
is
> OK, it improves upon the DefaultAvalonScheduler for James' needs.

I am planning to checkin Scheduler implementation in the next few hours, but
keep it disabled. i.e I won't swap scheduler impl in assembly.xml yet.
Hopefully as others test and there is more validation/improvements in the
next couple of days this will be enabled.

Noel's testing and my own testing indicates a significant improvement before
and after fix and it fits easily with current structure.

The beauty of using the same abstraction is that there is a simple backoff
or switch strategy available.
Once we are over this release let us talk about switching abstractions. I
have nothing against changing to WatchDog or another scheduler abstraction,
but I would like to see a demonstrable benefit. i.e performance,
scalability. I think sharing code with commons is good esp. if there is also
yields a system wide benefit.

Noel, code will address these issues.

> creating a new Event object, iteratively SEARCHING the timerMap to find
the
> next open time after the one we want, creating a new Event each iteration,
> and then adding the final Event to both the TreeMap and the HashMap.

> it cannot effectively handle a time for less than the current wake
> time, due to the operational loop:

> Another change is that the constrant re-creation of Entry objects should
be
> replaced by a mutator method that changes the internal values.

Noel/others, could you please review this and suggest patches.
Additional testing would be a big help too. I will also do additional
testing.

thanks,
Harmeet


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to