Consider ArrayBlockingQueue. It has ability to remove a specified element from queue. Also, it is bounded, which is probably desirable.
Chas On 5/6/11 11:35 AM, "Mark Thomas" <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >On 06/05/2011 16:24, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 5/6/11 3:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> Before I go too far down the road of the re-writing the core object >>> allocation code for pool2, I'd like to get some clarity on what the >>> minimum Java version targeted by pool2 should be. >> >> It is also logical to ask at this point if the rewrite is desirable >> / necessary and what we expect to gain from it. I have pretty >> consistently advocated this, but given the work and inevitable >> stabilization required, we should at least ask the question. Seems >> to me the goals should be 0) performance 1) maintainability 2) >> robustness 3) (configurable?) fairness. Do you agree with these and >> are you sure the rewrite is necessary to get them? > >Yes I agree. To address 0), we need to remove most/all of the >synchronisation around object allocation. That means a re-write, almost >certainly with java.u.c. I still have concerns around 1) & 2). The more >I think about this problem, the more I realise I need to spend more time >thinking about the problem. At the moment, I would rather take the time >and get this right. > >>> It is currently 1.5. >>> >>> It would make the implementation of the FIFO/LIFO allocation option >>> considerably easier if that was changed to 1.6. >> >> Can you explain a little what the problem is? > >Sure. In pool1 we have the ability (via CursorableLinkedList) to remove >and insert idle objects at any point in the queue. We use this for the >evictor and idle validation. It we switch to java.u.c (and I think it is >almost certain we will have to to get the performance we want) there are >far fewer options over object insertion/creation. > >In Java 1.5, LinkedBlockingQueue only supports FIFO. It is not possible >to remove from the tail of the queue or insert at the head. That makes >LIFO pretty much impossible to implement. > >In Java 1.6, LinkedBlockingDeque allows inserts and removals at either >end of the queue. That solves the LIFO/FIFO issue but not the eviction / >idle validation questions. I have some ideas about this but I am trying >to avoid creating lots of complexity. I am also mulling over how to >ensure that maxActive and friends are adhered to. > >Mark > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
