<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rails 2.2 To Be Thread Safe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.railsinside.com/news/74-rails-22-to-be-thread-safe.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.railsinside.com/news/74-rails-22-to-be-thread-safe.html</link>
	<description>Daily Rails news, views, tips, and joy</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mikel Lindsaar</title>
		<link>http://www.railsinside.com/news/74-rails-22-to-be-thread-safe.html#comment-34</link>
		<dc:creator>Mikel Lindsaar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railsinside.com/news/74-rails-22-to-be-thread-safe.html#comment-34</guid>
		<description>That is fantastic news.

I recently had a perfect problem that needed threads... one request had to hit a couple of different databases and combine the result to the view.  With threads, this could execute in about 2 seconds, without threads, it takes 9 seconds.

Big difference and glad to see this is now getting handled.  Thanks for the heads up.

Mikel</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is fantastic news.</p>
<p>I recently had a perfect problem that needed threads&#8230; one request had to hit a couple of different databases and combine the result to the view.  With threads, this could execute in about 2 seconds, without threads, it takes 9 seconds.</p>
<p>Big difference and glad to see this is now getting handled.  Thanks for the heads up.</p>
<p>Mikel</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
