The important parameters controlling behaviour of the Proxy Plugin

Question

The 7.0 Proxy Plugin has various crucial parameter controlling its operation. These are n:
#1. poll-timeout parameter that determines how long it waits for a reply before
considering a request as having failed.
The poll-timeout can be increased by adding the poll-timeout parameter to the end of
the Service entry within the obj.conf file. For example:
Service type="magnus-internal/passthrough" fn="service-passthrough"
servers="http://sunflash.red.iplanet.com" poll-timeout="600000"
Default timeout is 5 minutes, or 300000 milliseconds
Maximum timeout is 6 hours, or 21600000 milliseconds
Minimum timeout is 1 second, or 1000 milliseconds
#2. connect-timeout parameter that determines how long to wait for a connection
Minimum = 10 ms
Maximum = 75 seconds (75 * 1000)
Default = 5 seconds (5 * 1000)
#3. connect-interval parameter that determines Interval between connect() calls
Minimum = 10 ms
Maximum = 30 seconds (30 * 1000)
Default = 500 ms
AND
#4. keep-alive-timeout parameter that determines Maximum time to let connections idle
Minimum = 0
Maximum = 6 hours (6 * 60 * 60 * 1000)
Default = 30 seconds (30 * 1000)

Answer 1

JoachimSauer wrote:
I wouldn't care about efficiency in this kind of methods. Only optimize,
when you find out that this method is indeed a bottleneck, otherwise just
write a simple implementation (simple implementations are usually easier
to optimize for the JIT compiler, than "clever" impelementations).I agree with you, and when you recommend to basically "write dumb code", this interview with Brian Goetz crosses my mind: http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Interviews/goetz_qa.html
But given that the prolem at hand is Boolean, why not make a simple straightforward approach:
!((a & b) | (a & c) | (a & d) | (b & c) | (b & d) | (c & d)), which leads to
!((a & (b | c | d)) | (b & (c | d)) | (c & d)) or
boolean xor(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c, final boolean d) {
  return !((a & (b | c | d)) || (b & (c | d)) || (c & d));
}I consider this an acceptable solution, too.
EDIT:
No, not anymore! It may look nice and all, but is not quite XOR... so I apologize for being careless and not double-checking what I wrote (my "xor" returns true even if all arguments are false) -- sorry!
This should (hopefully) be correct:
EDIT2:
<del>[...]</del>
Aarrgh, but it's still horribly wrong! Made the same mistake twice, now I'll take some time to really think before totally embarrassing myself today...
But I have to admit that JoachimSauer's solution is indeed simpler and is probably the right choice...
Message was edited (2x) by:
oebert: correction
Message was edited by:
oebert