On 04/06/2015 05:05 PM, Kevin Burton wrote: > So I’m torn between two implementations of a new MemoryStore using JMS > priority. > > I could do it the FAST way, and use just a regular queue object, which > would include support for priorities, BUT would be slower for certain > operations like remove, get, and maybe size. > > It would just use a PriorityBlockingQueue > > OR > > I could do it the SLOW (and somewhat ugly) way but make it more compatible > with what works now. Basically I would use a ReentrantReadWriteLock around > both a map and a queue. The queue would be used or (obvious) queue > operations but the map would be used for getMessage and remove() … It would > also work with topics. > > The FAST way above wouldn’t work well with getMessage… because I would have > to iterate over the whole queue and then compare each message. > > I guess maybe the best way to go is to be conservative/pragmatic here and > move to a ReentrantReadWrite lock model and use both a map and a queue. > This would prevent any weird behavior that I don’t anticipate in exchange > for speed. It would also mean it would work well for topics too. I'd go with the second option as you still want to management operations to perform in a reasonable fashion even with the memory store.
-- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
