On 11/11/05, Holger Hoffstätte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there some interest in patches for this?
Sure, if your patches are made in a way, that
a) automatically detects the presence of java.util.concurrent and chooses
the proper implementation depending on the detections results or
b) makes the current model the default and allows the user to select the
1.5 version. (I do believe, that this should already be possible by
choosing the WorkerFactory, but I did not actually try.)
Besides, do not forget, that your patches should include Unit tests
for the added features and that these Unit tests should work on
1.2-1.5 (by again detecting, whether java.util.concurrent is in
place).
> I'd really like to see 3.0 become a high-performance, low-memory,
> low-latency screamer. :)
Thanks. However, I'd clearly prefer the term "streaming" branch,
because so far this is my private work and was never reviewed or
accepted by the other developers on this list.
But that brings me to another point: If you want this thing to go on,
how about contributing some docs? That's definitely the part that's
lacking most before presenting the work on this mailing list and
allowing others to review the result.
> PS: I thought the "streaming" branch would also incorporate a StAX parser
> - is that still the goal or did I misunderstand? It still seems everything
> is using SAX. In any case streaming the requests/responses themselves is a
> great start though.
I see absolutely no reason for using a StAX parser. The parsing we do
is typically relatively easy. Did you have a look at the parser
classes? They really aren't overly complex.
Now, having two implementations with the same complexity, we should
really use that one, which doesn't add dependencies.
Jochen
--
Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the
boat. (Mark Twain)
