Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I see this now in GOP javadoc for numActive.
>
> * The combined count of the currently active objects and those in the
> * process of being created. Under load, it may exceed {@link
>#_maxActive}
> * but there will never be more than {@link #_maxActive} created
>at any one
> * time.
>
>[performance] still checks to make sure this does not happen and I
>have not seen it yet in my load tests. I don't personally like the
>idea of allowing the number of instances being created + under
>management to exceed maxActive. This could cause resource problems
>for systems that experience load spikes and if it is allowed "a
>little" then on loaded systems that can quickly escalate to "a
>lot". I don't think we should back off of this invariant contract.
>Could be I am misunderstanding the comment and what it really means
>to say is that numActive can overstate the instance count in certain
>circumstances. Is that what is meant?
>
>Also, I think it would be great to change the name of this member
>variable and the numActive property on the Deque in GKOP. The name
>is misleading as it is really idle + active + being created. Maybe
>something like instanceCount.
>
>Phil
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
The naming could be better and there is probably a case for two attributes.
The short version is:
- there will never be more than maxActive objects created / in creation
- under load numActive may exceed maxActive for a very short time but it will
be reduced again a few lines of code later before the object creation process
starts.
There is actually a bunch of attribute renaming that needs to be done.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
