|
|
|
|
|
|
by DrHeisenberg
5621 days ago
|
|
|
Thank you for your views on the project. Creating new threads may not be as expensive as you seem to think, -on a standard desktop computer you get between 5000-1000 executed events per second, which is probably sufficient for most situations. This use of multi-threading is used to achieve full asynchronisity. The opposite, as you are implying, is to execute the events sequentially, within the same thread. I apprechiate that you would sometimes prefer the latter, but this can in fact be very easily achieved by using a fixed size thread pool, and adjusting its size to your preferences. Setting the size to one, would ensure sequencial execution of all events. Maybe I should include a threadpool in the next version, allowing its size to be specified. |
|
|
As a point of comparison, I put together a quick Python script that defines a simple single-threaded event dispatcher and then does the same thing as your testPerformance() test, and it handles over 296k events/s on my machine (where javaEventing handles 3.7k).
This use of multi-threading is used to achieve full asynchronisity
The way that you're currently synchronizing, the only concurrency you're seeing is for your handlers. You only trigger and dispatch out to handlers one event at a time.
There are two scenarios where threads are always going to be unavoidably slow: high contention, and processor-bound tasks with more threads than processors. Your current synchronization policy pretty much assures you're going to run into high contention, and if you're using this for processor-bound tasks, you're going to pay a severe tax for the number of threads you're generating, as well.
Put in the threadpool. Take a look at ConcurrentHashMap and CopyOnWriteArrayList. Work on your synchronization policy. High throughput concurrency and eventing is hard, but Java actually has a lot of nice building blocks to work with. If you want a good overview, you should check out Brian Goetz's Java Concurrency in Practice.