[undertow-dev] [undertow] Change to using a timer to invalidate the date rather than calling nanoTime each request (07e3b93)

[Stuart Douglas]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello Stuart,
>
> yes I agree it is a good compromise. I do wonder however if you should
> use an atomic to set the new value to make sure you schedule only one
> timer. I could imagine that it creates an avalanch of timers if 2
> requests at the same time race to set the next date (and start 2
> timers) and then the next expire 2x2 timers, etc.

Hmm, that is a good point. I think it should be ok, but it does seem 
safer to do a CAS. I will change it.

Stuart

>
> (And I would also move the calculations for mod+togo after setting the
> new dateString to make the window smaller
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> Am Wed, 04 Jun 2014
> 09:52:18 -0700 schrieb Stuart Douglas<notifications at github.com>:
>
>>   Stuart Douglas<notifications at github.com>
>> To: undertow-io/undertow<undertow at noreply.github.com>
>> Cc: Bernd<bernd at eckenfels.net>
>> Subject: Re: [undertow] Change to using a timer to invalidate the
>> date rather than calling nanoTime each request (07e3b93) Date: Wed,
>> 04 Jun 2014 09:52:18 -0700 Reply-To: undertow-io/undertow
>> <reply+c-6555558-99b5c22664ba7984b00186177b011624000c5527-361432 at reply.github.com>
>>
>> The main issue I had with that is that it will run even if your
>> server is completely idle, and also that it adds additional lifecycle
>> complexity into the connectors, as they would need to have their
>> timers explicitly stopped on teardown. I think this is a good
>> compromise.
>>
>> ---
>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>> https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/commit/07e3b9315c3d87205ef5ac890767c277f29d9068#commitcomment-6555558
>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev