prove that it hurts and we will be happy to rewrite it. -igor
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, ywtsang <[email protected]> wrote: > > i don't have concrete stress test results to support if this "synchronized" > hurts the performance badly > > but instead i was trying to throw a question on the code to see if it is > necessary to use "synchronized" at the case (in fact, i don't support adding > mount paths dynamically during runtime, so it is just read-only and not > necessary to have it synchronized) > > btw, i also find other places in the codes have the similar situation , e.g. > > WebRequestCodingStrategy#getMountEncoder > > > and if there are too much unnecessary synchronized codes, i think it hurts > > > > Thomas Mäder-2 wrote: >> >> Root of all evil! Root of all evil! ;-) >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Johan Compagner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> And for 1.4+ we could make that map concurrent if that isnt already the >>> case >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mäder >> Wicket & Eclipse Consulting >> www.devotek-it.ch >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/question-about-adding-%22synchronized%22-on-mountsOnPath-at-WebRequestCodingStrategy-tp21970542p21988196.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
