>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Welsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Thome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Agreed - beginners *do* tend to use too many threads,
> This has nothing to do with "beginners"!
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that I think that use of many threads
is a bad idea... (quite the opposite, in fact). I certainly
agree that there are problem domains for which you cannot escape using
many threads (one you mention below), especially when you scale the
problem. I only meant to say that a typical beginner problem is to
use threads in ways which are intrinsically inappropriate and that
this is a programmer error, so does need not be addressed in the same
way as the very real and inescapable problems with (current)
native-only VM implementations.
> Currently, you *cannot* write a Web server in Java without using one
> thread per socket connection. You can limit the number of "active"
> connections, and queue up new incoming connections until a thread in
> your "pool" becomes available, but eventually this does not scale,
> and your users get angry at the long wait times.
> The solution is to either (a) fix threads or (b) introduce nonblocking
> I/O into Java. We (the expert group for JSR 51) is currently doing (b).
> I am proposing that (a) is useful as well.
Absolutely agree.
--
Michael Thome ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
