<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ehcache-1.6</title>
	<link>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/</link>
	<description>Yapping about stuff.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Sony Mathew</title>
		<link>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6491</link>
		<author>Sony Mathew</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6491</guid>
		<description>My testing for basic caching needs (70 threads putting/getting the same things) Ehcache 1.6 is actually slower than my simple cache - but given all the other features it provides it may have improved a different configuration (e.g. cluster cache).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My testing for basic caching needs (70 threads putting/getting the same things) Ehcache 1.6 is actually slower than my simple cache - but given all the other features it provides it may have improved a different configuration (e.g. cluster cache).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6490</link>
		<author>Jay</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6490</guid>
		<description>Yeah, it seems 1.5's CopyOnWriteArray and ConcurrentHashMap are being used. Also, I think he made some other core tweaks too. But yeah, it's a huge difference. 


I've used the ehcache API directly too, about 9 months ago. It's not too bad at all. Take another look.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, it seems 1.5&#8217;s CopyOnWriteArray and ConcurrentHashMap are being used. Also, I think he made some other core tweaks too. But yeah, it&#8217;s a huge difference. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve used the ehcache API directly too, about 9 months ago. It&#8217;s not too bad at all. Take another look.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sony Mathew</title>
		<link>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6489</link>
		<author>Sony Mathew</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jaybose.com/archives/ehcache-16/#comment-6489</guid>
		<description>Nice..tip.

Will have to check it out..I tried to put in Ehcache a while back but couldn't figure out from the docs etc. (in the time i had) whether it was using SoftReferences - so I had abandoned it and quickly wrote my own which has been working great untouched for the longest time.  

I will have to compare Echache's performance with my CacheManager .. those numbers seem way too good to not switch over.  Where do u think those kind of performance gains came from? - better concurrency and/or better hashmap alogrithm?  both seem like a tight squeeze for further performance   improvements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice..tip.</p>
<p>Will have to check it out..I tried to put in Ehcache a while back but couldn&#8217;t figure out from the docs etc. (in the time i had) whether it was using SoftReferences - so I had abandoned it and quickly wrote my own which has been working great untouched for the longest time.  </p>
<p>I will have to compare Echache&#8217;s performance with my CacheManager .. those numbers seem way too good to not switch over.  Where do u think those kind of performance gains came from? - better concurrency and/or better hashmap alogrithm?  both seem like a tight squeeze for further performance   improvements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
