Remy Maucherat wrote:
Au menu: - Using Embedded - Using JMX (which I think is cool) - Using the in-memory connector
Speaking of which, the in-memory connector might be good for a bare bones JNI connector, if someone wants to try. The current JK JNI has about the same overhead os a socket, so it could improve performance.
What do you mean by same overhead as a socket ?
If you remember, when I benched it (some time ago), it had about the same performance as a regular socket based AJP connection. It was slightly faster than socket on some configurations (with IIS, for example), but still significantly slower than the standalone connector. I still don't see where I made a mistake, but it would be good if someone tested this again.
It does go through the same marshaling process - because JNI has a huge cost on Strings and almost anything that requires allocation. But at least the current version should be a bit faster than TCP or unix domain.
That's quite possible, I don't know.
Rémy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
