On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > Stefan Guggisberg wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> Most jcr apps I've seen often use a single session from several threads >>> to read from this session. (I think I also read it somewhere that this >>> is safe with jackrabbit, but I might be mistaken). >> >> that's an unsupported api usage. i don't see why would need to support this >> in a future version. > I didn't say if jackrabbit should support this in the future or not. :) > I'm just stating the fact, that huge apps that are built on top of > jackrabbit make use of this! For example see this thread > (http://n4.nabble.com/session-pooling-td539577.html#a539577) where it is > explicitly stated that it's safe to use jackrabbit sessions for multi > threaded reading. And as I said I've seen such hints and usage a lot.
i can't see any official statement in this thread, only personal opinions expressed. AFAIK 'session thread safety' has never been an officially supported jackrabbit feature. > > And if I'm not mistaken, with explictly introducing all these syncs you > enable multi-threaded read *and* write access. no, the goal is to minimize the risk of repository corruption. cheers stefan > >> >>> Simply syncing everything on the session would decrease performance in >>> these cases dramatically. >> >> is this just a wild guess or do you have figures that prove your claim? > Now, with the suggested syncing you have a very high level sync point > where only one client after the other can use the objects. > > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > cziege...@apache.org >
