I think that's roughly equivalent to Georg's 'wait(DEADLOCKTIMEOUT +
1000)'. Did Marc talk about waiting on 'this'? or is that non-literal?
Bill Burke wrote:
> I remember Marc talking about this issue awhile back. He said the best
> performance would be to have the wait within a loop with a 5 second wait.
>
> while (!locked()) // pseudo code
> {
> this.wait(5000);
> if (!locked())
> {
> log.("LOCKING-WAITING....");
> }
> }
>
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
>>(Dan Christopherson)
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:31 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Missing wait/notify (was Re: [JBoss-dev] Avoiding Locks for
>>READ-ONLY Beans)
>>
>>
>>danch (Dan Christopherson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Georg Rehfeld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One problem here is that when we're waiting on the context, we want to
>>>wait on the context (i.e. "ctx.wait(DEADLOCKTIMEOUT + 1000)")
>>>
>>Just doing
>>
>>>wait and notifyAll on the interceptor itself will involve all calls on
>>>our entity when we just want to handle contention for the one context.
>>>
>>>The other problem is that if we're waiting on the transaction, we don't
>>>want to do wait/notify on the context - I don't know what we do want to
>>>wait on, but we really need to know when the transaction ends.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, looking closer at the code, it's probably the mutex that we
>>want to wait on in both cases - it is specific to the key involved.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
Confidential e-mail for addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is
unauthorized.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
reply e-mail
and destroy the original communication.
