[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: Why bother with APR?
"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : "remy.maucherat(a)jboss.com" wrote : Actually, I think NIO is pointless.
| I didn't ask, "Who here thinks NIO is pointless". I asked if there were any good benchmarks comparing NIO to APR in terms of performance.
| I've also heard things like "APR is more flexible", but I haven't seen any information to back that up either.
I believe the RHM team compared NIO (using Apache MINA) to Apache APR and also to asynchronous IO using direct Linux OS calls (i.e. not going through the APR abstraction layer).
I believe the direct hooks gave the best performance, NIO was pretty good, and APR not so good due to the overhead of having to find a common API over all OSs.
Sorry for the vaguities, but this is what I remember them mentioning. Don't know if their findings were correct or not.
BTW we (JBM) definitely need NIO for handling large number of connections. APR is a "nice to have" if it gives radically better performance than NIO, but I'm not particularly bothered about it.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4067537#4067537
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4067537
15 years, 10 months
[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - JBMICROCONT-181 & ManagedDeployments
I just checked in the current direction I'm heading in terms of updating the contract for deployer layer in terms of management views. The top level management view is a ManagedDeployment containing ManagedComponents. The role of the existing ManagedObject is not explicit in these views. Its more of an implementation detail around ManagedPropertys being connected to a DeploymentUnit metadata attachment instance. The existing DeployerClient.getManagedObjects methods should be dropped in favor of the new DeployerClient.getManagedDeployment method.
Likewise, the ManagedObjectCreator should be dropped in favor of the ManagedDeploymentCreator/ManagedComponentCreator interfaces. What I'm currently doing is working through the use cases the existing ProfileServiceUnitTestCase has as well as the "TODO JBMICROCONT-181 Critique" comment Adrian has in the ManagedObjectCreator.
I believe that we will have a standard ManagedDeploymentCreator implementation that uses the org.jboss.managed.api.annotation.* annotations to build the ManagedDeployment/ManagedComponent instances by parsing the DeploymentUnit attachments to identify what makes up the management interface. I also see that this could be augmented by deployers providing ManagedComponentCreators to deal with component properties that cannot adequately be described via annotations.
Right now I'm working on creating a DeployerManagedDeploymentUnitTestCase that illustrates the logic for a datasource(s) type of deployment. Let me know if there is a big disconnect with the api I checked in and this direction.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4067530#4067530
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4067530
15 years, 10 months
[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Why bother with APR?
I've been having an email discussion with various parties about NIO versus APR. I'm thinking specifically in terms of Remoting, but I think that the discussion can be more generally applied.
What I want to know is, why we should bother (with a modern JVM) to use APR when NIO is standard and built in. Specifically, I have not found any published benchmarks about the subject, except for that published by Jean-Francois Arcand here:
His findings seem to be that NIO performs as well as APR in Coyote, if not better. Are there any counter-benchmarks out there? Google didn't seem to turn up anything relevant. And, how big a margin is needed before it becomes worth it to use APR?
Personally I feel it would be far more productive, not to mention better for the community, to put our efforts towards working with the EG to improve NIO, if it is deficient in some way.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4067405#4067405
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4067405
15 years, 10 months