Queues with Threads to be avoided.

Warning: Contains some ranting. ;)

It baffles me why so many developers use Queue and Thread explicitly when there is an ExecutorService built in which does both much more elegantly. This has been part of Java 5.0 since 2004 and was available as a third party library many years before that.

There are specific cases where using a Queue and Thread is the best choice but that doesn't appear to be the reason it is done most of the time.

Is it a lack of understanding of these core libraries? Is it because that is how it is done in other languages and people are bringing the patterns they know to Java?

I wonder if developers get some satisfaction doing things the hard way. There is a greater sense of achievement when you have written some really complex code?

Any other theories welcome. ;)

Examples of developers doing things the hard way.
  • Using a text editor for development instead of an IDE
  • Using double checked locking lazy Singleton instead of an enum with one instance.
  • Using primitive wrappers when they mean to use primitives.
  • Trying to guess why a program doesn't work as expected instead of using a debugger
  • Trying to guess why your program doesn't perform instead of using a profiler which will measure it.

Comments

  1. Anonymous29 June 2011 at 13:09

    great :D

    need code example

    ReplyDelete
  2. Parwinder Sekhon2 July 2011 at 08:28

    Probably, because most developers can get stuck in their ways, so are still using what worked for them pre-2004 :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dave Z12 July 2011 at 20:37

    I use them, queues, when I am using a persistent task-threads that need to queue up commands/data to be handled separately from incoming requests. The Executors are good otherwise.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Java is Very Fast, If You Don’t Create Many Objects

Image
  You still have to watch how many objects you create. This article looks at a benchmark passing events over TCP/IP at 4 billion events per minute using the net.openhft.chronicle.wire.channel package in Chronicle Wire and why we still avoid object allocations..  One of the key optimisations is creating almost no garbage. Allocation is a very cheap operation and collection of very short-lived objects is also very cheap. Does this really make a difference? What difference does one small object per event (44 bytes) make to the performance in a throughput test where GC pauses are amortised? While allocation is as efficient as possible, it doesn’t avoid the memory pressure on the L1/L2 caches of your CPUs and when many cores are busy, they are contending for memory in the shared L3 cache.  Results Benchmark on a Ryzen 5950X with Ubuntu 22.10. JVM Vendor, Version No objects Throughput, Average Latency* One object per event Throughput, Average Latency* Azul Zulu 1.8.0_322 60.6 M event/s, 528
Read more

System wide unique nanosecond timestamps

A Unique Identifier can be very useful for tracing. Those ids are even more useful when they contain a high-resolution timestamp.  Not only do they record the time of an event, but if unique can help trace events as they pass through the system. Such unique timestamps however can be expensive depending on how they are implemented.   This post explores a lightweight means of producing a unique, monotonically increasing system-wide nano-second resolution timestamp available in our open-source library. Uses for Unique Identifiers Unique identifiers can be useful to associate with a piece of information so that information can be referred to later unambiguously. This could be an event, a request, an order id, or a customer id. They can naturally be used as a primary key in a database or key/value store to retrieve that information later. One of the challenges of generating these identifiers is avoiding creating duplicates while not having an increasing cost.  You could record every identi
Read more

Comparing Approaches to Durability in Low Latency Messaging Queues

Image
  A significant feature of Chronicle Queue Enterprise is support for TCP replication across multiple servers to ensure the high availability of application infrastructure. I generally believe that replicating data to a secondary system is faster than syncing to disk, assuming the round trip network delay wasn’t high due to quality networks and co-located redundant servers. This is the first time I have benchmarked it with a realistic example. Little’s Law and Why Latency Matters In many cases, the assumption is that the latency won't be a problem as long as throughput is high enough. However, latency is often a key factor in why the throughput isn’t high enough. Little’s law states, “ the long-term average number  L  of customers in a  stationary  system is equal to the long-term average effective arrival rate  λ  multiplied by the average time  W  that a customer spends in the system”. In computer terminology, the level of concurrency or parallelism a system has to support must be
Read more