It's not this same. Basically you have a loop to check to see if the
transaction has been commited or unlocked, but you put a wait of 5 seconds
in there. After the 5 seconds if you're still not locked loop again.
OT, how does transaction timeout destroy the thread? TIA.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
> (Dan Christopherson)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Missing wait/notify (was Re: [JBoss-dev] Avoiding Locks for
> READ-ONLY Beans)
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
