An old geek joke, related to the mad trademarking of just about anything....
On 21 December 2010 00:28, MICHAEL MCGRADY <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>wrote: > Dan, what is "(TM)"? > > On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Dan Creswell wrote: > > > Blitz too has optional FIFO-ness via configuration though it's absolutely > a > > performance killer for any decent concurrent load by virtue of the usual > > suspects such as lock contention and the high chance of scanning entry's > > that have just been taken by a thread just ahead in the queue. > > > > To be honest though, unless FIFO is spec'd officially as an option or a > > default, having developers rely on magic such as FIFO by default is "very > > bad" (TM). > > > > On 20 December 2010 20:30, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > > >> Tom Hobbs wrote: > >> > >>> I know of at least one company which uses Outrigger specifically > >>> because of it's fortuitous FIFO behaviour. I'm trying to encourage > >>> them to move from the Jini 2.1 code to the River release and losing > >>> the FIFO-ness might be an issue for them. > >>> > >>> And yes I know, the spec doesn't specify FIFO, like I said, they > >>> needed a FIFO space, and Outrigger "just happened" to behave like > >>> that. > >>> > >> > >> That confirms my suspicion that FIFO-ness is a useful property. I note > that > >> Gigaspaces has optional support for FIFO. > >> > >> My quick changes to try to fix the current bug will preserve it. If the > >> long term design loses it for flat-out performance, we should make it > >> available on a configuration basis. > >> > >> Patricia > >> > >> > >> > > Michael McGrady > Chief Architect > Topia Technology, Inc. > Cel 1.253.720.3365 > Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 > mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com > > > >
