To be honest if the response time for a lookup is 5 seconds your clients
would go shopping elsewhere!
Vinay
----- Original Message -----
From: "danch (Dan Christopherson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Missing wait/notify (was Re: [JBoss-dev] Avoiding Locks for
READ-ONLY Beans)
> I don't understand what is different between the two. Are you saying to
> have only one place where we wait? If so I agree.
>
> Bill Burke wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
