Efficiency of context-per-thread on shared engine vs. engine + context per thread?

[Frantzius, Jörg]

Hi,

for our application we’re about to implement a global-per-thread on single engine approach, and I’d be very thankful if someone in the know could share some insights on whether this is worth the effort when compared to engine-per thread (as the latter seems much more easy to implement for us).

More precisely the question is whether a single engine with multiple ScriptContexts is substantially more resource-efficient than multiple engines (each with their own ScriptContext)? Does Nashorn e.g. share code-optimization between engines? Or does it share code-optimization between ScriptContexts on a single engine in the first place?

Also it would be great to know about the memory-footprint of the engine, e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24116672/how-much-memory-does-a-nashorn-scriptengine-use seems to say that an empty engine is ~324KB, but I’d expect that to be higher when it is actually executing code.

Thanks for any insights + regards,
Jörg


---

Dipl. Inf. Jörg von Frantzius, Technical Director

E-Mail joerg.frantzius at aperto.com

Phone +49 30 283921-318
Fax +49 30 283921-29

Aperto GmbH – An IBM Company
Chausseestraße 5, D-10115 Berlin
http://www.aperto.com<http://www.aperto.de/>
http://www.facebook.com/aperto
https://www.xing.com/companies/apertoag

HRB 77049 B, AG Berlin Charlottenburg
Geschäftsführer: Dirk Buddensiek, Kai Großmann, Stephan Haagen, Daniel Simon