Re: RMI Not Scalable?
Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.sun.rmi |
|---|---|
| Organization | Private |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sunday 26 June 2005 01:40, Robert DiFalco wrote: > C sends task (including callback) to S > -- the connection is done afterwards > C waits in local thread pool for the callback > -- requires no connection to S > S completes task an sends result to C using callback > -- a new connection just for the callback I am wondering why don't you just let each of the slaves keep the RMI connections open permanently?? Ok, you will end up with 2 sockets per slave per concurrent call (which could be 1), but those should be cheaper and easier to manage and monitor than the flurry of threads. Cheers Niclas =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body of the message "signoff RMI-USERS". For general help, send email to [email protected] and include in the body of the message "help". For a list of frequently asked RMI questions please refer to: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/rmi/faq.html To view past RMI-USERS postings, please see: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/rmi-users.html