Author: kkolinko
Date: Wed Jun 17 22:11:45 2009
New Revision: 785833
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=785833&view=rev
Log:
answer
Modified:
tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=785833&r1=785832&r2=785833&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt (original)
+++ tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Wed Jun 17 22:11:45 2009
@@ -163,15 +163,25 @@
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/connector-thread-report.patch
+1: fhanik, markt
-1:
- +1: kkolinko: (
- good, but
+ -1: kkolinko: (
1. Why such short implementation for JIoEndpoint, AprEndpoint and
such elaborated one for NioEndpoint?
fhanik: NioEndpoint only uses Executors, it's removed the 'synchronized' based
thread pool.
+kkolinko: Thanks for explaining, but for 6.0 code that is not true:
+ The NioEndpoint.getWorkerThread() method does exist in 6.0,
+ so your patch will break the thing, thus my -1.
+ I do not know whether it is actually used. Maybe you can remove
+ workers support from 6.0.
+
+ There could be "return curThreads[Busy];" instead of "return -2;" in
your patch.
+
Is there a reason why JIoEndpoint, AprEndpoint are not
implemented in the same way?
fhanik: there was a notion that the Tomcat thread pool was faster, hence the
old one is still there
+kkolinko: I mean: why not to ask ThreadPoolExecutor for the values,
+ like the NioEndpoint part of the patch does?
+
2. Http11Processor calls JIoEndpoint.getCurrentThreadsBusy():
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
