I will test the revision you requested on Windows later tonight. It'll take a while though, as you are aware.
Actually, I noticed that a lot of the service QA tests contain code that uses TaskManager, so I think by running the complete QA suite, you are implicitely testing TaskManager. I haven't looked into it too deep, but that was my impression going through the tests (fixing javadoc tags, lol) It would be great, however, to have (a/some) unit test(s) that test TaskManager behaviour in isolation as well. I know, its not that straight forward ... But still it would be great :-) 2010/9/22 Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> > YES, PLEASE! Code reviews are a good thing in any case, and this is my > first open source, Apache, or River coding effort, so there may be style > issues. > > My big picture objective is to improve the scalability of TaskManager, as a > response to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-344. > > It was doing a lot of O(n) operations, mainly due to the use of an > ArrayList to represent essentially a FIFO. Those O(n) operations are doubly > bad news for scalability because they are done under synchronization. I've > reduced many of them to O(log n) by replacing the ArrayList with a TreeSet > and PriorityBlockingQueue, both in order of arrival, the same order as the > original ArrayList. > > I may implement finer scale optimizations later, such as replacing > synchronization with atomic operations. However, in my experience it is > important to get the data structures and algorithms right first. > > Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, even with Jonathan's heroic > test-enabling efforts, I don't think we have a good TaskManager scalability > test, or a test of the concurrent behavior of its clients. > > Patricia > > > > On 9/22/2010 7:16 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote: > >> I'm happy to do some code reviews. I can't run any tests though, I don't >> have any access to any Windows machines. >> >> Let me know if this would be useful, and I'll check those revisions out. >> >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Patricia Shanahan<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm testing my new TaskManager the , but I have some anomalies. It would >>> help me to get some more testing of >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/river/jtsk/skunk/patsTaskManagerdonein >>> other WindowsXP environments. >>> >>> Both the head revision and revision 998737 need to be tested. Revision >>> 998737 is the one I plan to merge into the trunk. It changes the >>> interface >>> between TaskManager and its callers, with minimal changes to TaskManager. >>> >>> It is important that it be tested widely, because it affects a lot of >>> critical classes, and would be difficult to back out. >>> >>> The head revision drops in a revised TaskManager. It should be easy to >>> back >>> out if necessary. >>> >>> Patricia >>> >>> >> >
