Scott Oaks wrote:
>On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 21:29, Ken Cavanaugh wrote:
>
>
>>Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jan.Luehe_at_Sun.COM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken Cavanaugh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see the following snippet in domain.xml:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <thread-pools> <thread-pool
>>>>>>>thread-pool-id="thread-pool-1" min-thread-pool-size="0"
>>>>>>>max-thread-pool-size="200" i
>>>>>>>dle-thread-timeout-in-seconds="120" num-work-queues="1"/>
>>>>>>> </thread-pools>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is anything in v3 runtime using this snippet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am planning on removing this from Prelude's web-bundle default
>>>>>>>domain.xml.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>Just to confirm: This will be restored post prelude, right?
>>>>(If so, why remove it now and restore it later?)
>>>>
>>>>The new Grizzly <network-config> is going to deprecate the use of
>>>><connection-pool> in favor of <thread-pool>, so we'll definitely require
>>>>this element post prelude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>OK. Thanks for letting me know. I am almost certain that even if we use
>>>it then, we will have to change the way it looks, isn't it?
>>>
>>>Anyway, I will not remove it from domain.xml.
>>>
>>>>From the common use standpoint, if multiple modules are going to use it,
>>>this probably is going to be a shared config, right?
>>>
>>>What are the reasons to have a shared thread-pool for the modular server?
>>>
>>>
>>>
Maybe I wasn't clear, but what I meant was that the Grizzly <network-config>
will leverage the <thread-pool> *definition* from domain.xml (in favor of
<connection-pool>).
Other parts of the system (e.g., ORB) already leverage <thread-pool>, or
will migrate to it.
This does not necessarily mean that thread pools will be shared by these
components.
It is only the <thread-pool> definition from domain.xml that will be shared.
Jan