Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
actorom-discussions
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Threading Policies
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Sergio Bossa  
View profile  
 More options Nov 12 2009, 3:32 am
From: Sergio Bossa <sergio.bo...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:19 +0100
Local: Thurs, Nov 12 2009 3:32 am
Subject: Re: Threading Policies
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Weber <stefan.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand this reasoning and think it makes sense. To be honest, the
> suggestion I made to allow concurrent handlers if the @ThreadSafe annotation
> is not very clean.

Glad you agree :)

> I think this is a good idea and had it in mind as well. I was a bit
> reluctant to do this because it would push some of the concurrency burden
> that I could get rid of with Actorom back to the application. But given that
> you also suggest to do it this way I will try this.

I know, I know, that's why I was recently considering to add to
Actorom a bunch of commonly used handler implementation, such as
"BalancingActor", "OffloadingActor" and so on ... do you think it
could be a worthy addition?

> Actually, I had to ideas how to implement it:
> [CUT]
> I prefer solution 2 because it is simpler.

Agree: and #2 actually does what you describe in #1 under the hood, so
don't reinvent the wheel :)

> The only small doubt I have is
> that I have to create a new Runnable for every message. I don't have enough
> experience to guess how expensive this will be in practice but I assume it
> will be easy to spot in case it really becomes a bottleneck. What do you
> think?

Absolutely agree: I don't think creating Runnable objects would be a
problem and just in case you may want to tune your garbage collection
to accommodate the large number of short-lived objects (by tuning the
eden space) ... anyways, go with it and keep me posted.

Cheers,

Sergio B.

--
Sergio Bossa
Software Passionate and Open Source Enthusiast.
URL: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sergiob


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google