From: Chuck E. <ec...@mi...> - 2000-06-13 23:58:51
|
I'd also like to open another topic for discussion: threads and sessions. Right now the appserver creates and destroys a thread for every request that comes in. I have this idea that instead of doing that, it could have one thread per session. When a request maps to a particular session, we simply use that thread which would process it's requests sequentially, FIFO. Would this have better performance? Would this improve safety/stability in the case where a single user does something in 2-3 browser windows, resulting in simultaneous requests? I do that all the time. :-) Think about the requests updating session vars, etc. What do you think? -Chuck |
From: Geoff T. <gtalvola@NameConnector.com> - 2000-06-14 00:27:22
|
Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > I'd also like to open another topic for discussion: threads and sessions. > > Right now the appserver creates and destroys a thread for every request > that comes in. I have this idea that instead of doing that, it could have > one thread per session. When a request maps to a particular session, we > simply use that thread which would process it's requests sequentially, FIFO. > > Would this have better performance? > > Would this improve safety/stability in the case where a single user does > something in 2-3 browser windows, resulting in simultaneous requests? I do > that all the time. :-) Think about the requests updating session vars, etc. > > What do you think? > > -Chuck > What if a request takes a long time, and the user gets bored and clicks on something else instead? I do THAT all the time :-) Does that mean they have to wait patiently while the original request grinds away, even if the new request would have been quick? -- - Geoff Talvola Parlance Corporation gtalvola@NameConnector.com |
From: Chuck E. <ec...@mi...> - 2000-06-14 00:44:15
|
At 08:24 PM 6/13/00 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote: >Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > I'd also like to open another topic for discussion: threads and sessions. > > > > Right now the appserver creates and destroys a thread for every request > > that comes in. I have this idea that instead of doing that, it could have > > one thread per session. When a request maps to a particular session, we > > simply use that thread which would process it's requests sequentially, > FIFO. > > > > Would this have better performance? > > > > Would this improve safety/stability in the case where a single user does > > something in 2-3 browser windows, resulting in simultaneous requests? I do > > that all the time. :-) Think about the requests updating session vars, > etc. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -Chuck > > > >What if a request takes a long time, and the user gets bored and clicks on >something else instead? I do THAT all the time :-) Does that mean they have to >wait patiently while the original request grinds away, even if the new request >would have been quick? > >-- > > >- Geoff Talvola > Parlance Corporation > gtalvola@NameConnector.com That's a good one! I'll have to think some more on this. -Chuck |