Re: [infinispan-dev] The windup of 6.0.0
On 10/17/13 4:52 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Bela, do you really need to rename the thread? You already pass a
name
argument to the Thread constructor, why not create the thread with the
"correct" name directly?
Correct, I'll change that. I used renameThreads() in the ctor out of
convenience, but this names a new thread twice:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1719
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Dennis Reed <dereed(a)redhat.com
<mailto:dereed@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:26 AM, Bela Ban wrote:
> The other thing to look at is the apparent cost of
Thread.setName(): if
> we cannot avoid thread many creations, we could experiment with *not*
> naming threads, although this is IMO not a good idea.
I agree that not naming the threads is a bad idea.
The thread names are vital for debugging -- both in log messages and in
thread dumps.
Not naming the threads would lose a whole lot of information.
-Dennis
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org)