--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> wrote: > Adrian Crum wrote: > > --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> > wrote: > >> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>> --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> Search for synchronized in > >>>> ShoppingCart. You'll fine a couple > of > >>>> spots that lock on cartLines, a few that > lock in > >> the class > >>>> instance > >>>> itself. But then no other hits. > >>>> > >>>> However, tons of internal variables all > need to be > >> kept > >>>> self-consistent with each other, so > locking > >> against just > >>>> one or the > >>>> other of those variables won't work. > >>> These same problems exist in a number of > classes - not > >> just the shopping cart (take a look at > SequenceUtil for some > >> really scary code). That's why I suggested a > synchronization > >> best practices page that the community can > follow. > >> > >> I have looked at SequenceUtil, and have a version > lying > >> around that is > >> non-blocking. I need to pull that out of the > attic, > >> and put it in my > >> staging tree, and run with it for a while. > > > > It would be cool if you could send it to me. I can get > SequenceUtil to break fairly easily with my multi-threaded > data loading modification - so I think it would be a good > test for your code. > > I'm having a hard time finding it. > > However, I'll take the time to ask a question. Why > does > SequenceUtil.SequenceBank.fillBank do direct sql calls, and > not use > the delegator to update values? > > I'm thinking about adding test cases for SequenceUtil, but > I'd like to > be able to test it in stand-alone mode. Would being > able to do small > ofbiz startups, ie, with all components upto and including > the current > one, just to run the current components test cases, be a > useful feature?
Of course it would be useful! Is that possible?
