You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wink.apache.org by "Bryant Luk (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/09/11 21:56:58 UTC

[jira] Resolved: (WINK-175) Change ProvidersRegistry MediaTypeMap to allow gets to be faster

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-175?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Bryant Luk resolved WINK-175.
-----------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed
      Assignee: Bryant Luk

I made the change since the performance looked better.

Out of personal curiosity, I did some quick Googling for when ConcurrentHashMap would lock.  One of the better articles I found is: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp08223/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX02&S_CMP=EDU which explains that the get() operation can often proceed without locking at the Java level.  It's an apparently deep understanding of the Java memory model that makes it possible.

> Change ProvidersRegistry MediaTypeMap to allow gets to be faster
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WINK-175
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-175
>             Project: Wink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Common
>    Affects Versions: 0.2
>            Reporter: Bryant Luk
>            Assignee: Bryant Luk
>             Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> Doug Larson did some more profiling and pointed out that on the ProvidersRegistry MediaTypeMap, using a ConcurrentHashMap over SimpleConcurrentMap actually improves performance by a few percentage points.
> {code}
>         private final SimpleMap<Class<?>, SoftReference<SimpleMap<MediaType, List<ObjectFactory<T>>>>> providersCache =
>                                                                                                                           new SimpleConcurrentMap<Class<?>, SoftReference<SimpleMap<MediaType, List<ObjectFactory<T>>>>>(); ;
> {code}
> While the cache keys (Class<?>) would not be WeakReferences, the values would still be SoftReferences.
> Thoughts?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.