>
>>
>> Make sense. So with that, the onEvent no longer needs to be
>> synchronized?
>>
>> true, no need for it.
>>
>
> But this is not the default right now so we still need to improve the
> current implementation IMO (and your proposal makes a right step).
>
> What about a base class that implement CometHandler?
>
> how do you mean ?.please explain.
i dont think we have anything to gain from that since we cant change the
comethandler api, thats why i have cuncurrentcomethander interferface
that extends comethandler.
and then the defaultconcurrentcomethandler abstract baseclass that does the
isactive and local event queue without synchronizing when doing IO.
with methods for onqueuefull for user to handle that defaults to kill the
comethandler.
and a shutdown method to prevent threads to add more events to a dead
comethandler.
regards
gustav trede