I mean "chill"
that it is kind of deep and I want to have a clear picture of where things
are at before we start "wild" commits on the locking.
This is how I got in this mess in the first place (with Simone).
So I will make it up to you as I work my way back to coding JBoss 3.0.
Do put your code in a JBOSS3.0 branch on which I would like to code and I
will review it shortly.
Can you or someone branch the codebase?
marcf
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
|Burke
|Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:44 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|
|
|
|
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|> fleury
|> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:27 AM
|> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|>
|>
|> let's chill on that one for a couple of days... it is a tricky one.
|>
|
|Do you mean 'chill' on ditching locking or my race-condition fixes?
|
|Bill
|
|> I did get it right the first time around (when we were benching at SUN).
|> Simone put a fancier cache but missed the One-Busy-Wait error, I
|> will try to
|> fix it. Frankly I need to sit down and think about the options and the
|> locking strategy...
|>
|> marcf
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
|> |Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:40 PM
|> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|> |
|> |
|> |Bill Burke wrote:
|> |
|> |> Marc,
|> |>
|> |> I've rewritten EntityInstanceInterceptor a little(see my race
|> |condition fix
|> |> email please) and put it some code so that LOCKING-WAITING isn't
|> |printed a
|> |> zillion times. I also added a Thread.yield() before continue; in the
|> |> lock-do-while-loop.
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> I've also started looking into ditching the do..while loop in favor of
|> |> wait/notify. It's much more complicated than I originally
|> |anticipated, but
|> |> I'm making progress. IMHO, the whole locking business should
|> be ditched
|> |> when you have commit-option-C. Let the database to the
|> synching for you
|> |> with the select-for-update feature(CMP) or make the BMP
|> developers handle
|> |> the locking.
|> |
|> |That will require multiple instances of each bean to be spec compliant.
|> |
|> |-danch
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> |_______________________________________________
|> |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
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
