Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>If tag-pooling works for you, I'm happy for you. The current >>>implementation >>>doesn't work for me big time. However, I'm very interested in Costin's >>>claim that it can be done thread-local. >> >> >> One quick question ( looking at generated code ) - why is the TP limited >> to 5 instances ? If you expect 20+ concurent requests ( where the TP >> would actually matter ) - you'll have the overhead of TP sync, and almost >> no benefit. Can you try again with a larger capacity ? >> >> Regarding the "claim" that it can be done thread-local: I attached a >> first draft, I'll enhance it later ( it could use ThreadWithAttributes - >> to save one extra hashtable lookup ). Let me know if it helps. > > If we could add a check so that JDKs < 1.4 would use the old synced > code, and JDK >= 1.4 would use TL, I think it would be the best. ThreadLocal is JDK1.2+ AFAIK. It's just that the implementation in 1.4 has been optimized ( or so I heard). But even 1.2 TL should be faster than the sync. IMO the 5 limit has a bigger impact than the sync - I would bet Bill tested with >20 concurent requests. I would make the max much bigger ( 100 ? ) - if fewer tags are used in a page, then the max will never be reached. > BTW, wouldn't using ThreadWithAttributes tie Jasper to Tomcat ? Well - with some conditionals and Class.forName() it can be done. It would be a pretty good idea to have jasper use tomcat-util buffers directly - as you know, I believe that would be a huge speedup. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
