Excellent.� Thank you.<br><br>- Jim<br><br>Jim Irrer � � <a href="mailto:irrer@umich.edu">irrer@umich.edu</a> � � � (734) 647-4409<br>University of Michigan Hospital Radiation Oncology<br>519 W. William St. � � � � � � Ann Arbor, MI 48103<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tonyg@lshift.net">tonyg@lshift.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Jim Irrer wrote:<br>
> So the C client is different from the Java client implementation, which<br>
> says that multiple threads can share a connection, but not a channel<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, that's right.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> If I have a multi-threaded Java client that needs many channels, then<br>
> it is ok (and more efficient) to have one connection and construct<br>
> many channels from it?<br>
<br>
</div>It's certainly OK. Whether it's more efficient or not depends on exactly<br>
what you're doing, but it is definitely more efficient in terms of<br>
socket/TCP resource use. Bear in mind that all the channels are<br>
multiplexed together onto a single TCP socket, and so one channel may<br>
momentarily force another to wait.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Tony<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>