guys, can you please open a separated discussion about concurrency? the thread has been completely hijacked :(
best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote: > I think ConcurrentSkipLisMap [1] would be also a nice option to inspect > (should be more performant [2]). > I think I can make some tests next week. > Tommaso > > [1] : > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentSkipListMap.html > [2] : > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1811782/when-should-i-use-concurrentskiplistmap > > > 2012/2/26 Michael André Pearce <[email protected]> > >> Haha i knew i remember seeing something, we can take insperation for key >> locking from how concurrenthashmap achieves it. >> >> >> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2012, at 01:14, Michael André Pearce wrote: >> >> > Doug Lee and using hashes, though i still cant remember for the life of >> me where ive seen this atm. (it cant be too distant past if i remember the >> guys name) >> > >> > >> > On 26 Feb 2012, at 01:06, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> > >> >> +1 concurrency is still an open issue in DM >> >> >> >> best, >> >> -Simo >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Michael André Pearce >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Also can i suggest locking on the key for put/updates/deletes? avoids >> someone getting a key whilst it is in transitive state of being updated by >> another, ive seen before a fancy way of doing this, avoiding a lock for >> every key, will have to try remember. >> >>> >> >>> On 26 Feb 2012, at 00:24, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi all guys, >> >>>> >> >>>> I had a chat with Benoit in another thread and I realized no one of >> >>>> our class is Thread safe - what do you think of actual behavior that >> >>>> every component accepts a setter for any member - that could cause >> >>>> strange behaviors at runtime? >> >>>> >> >>>> I would analyze wich components can be converted to immutable - IIUC >> >>>> Benoit agreed with me on having some PointerImpl members as immutable, >> >>>> i.e. CacheService#setMap( ConcurrentMap<K, Pointer<V>> map ) means >> >>>> dropping all the already stored data :) >> >>>> >> >>>> Thoughts? >> >>>> best, >> >>>> -Simo >> >>>> >> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> >>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> >>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >>> >> > >> >>
