> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc > fleury > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Stefan Reich' > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] RE: how's ecperf going? > > > > yes, if you take a look at the code, before the switch > > statement that distinguishes the cases between the different > > transaction attributes, we start by a tx.suspend() and, a few > > lines after, a tx.resume() if it was a REQUIRES tag for example, etc. > > I know I wrote the original version of the code. > > What I argued Nth times is that tx.suspend() should just be implemented > with > > threadLocalVariable.set(null); > > meaning that we disassociate the thread from the TX. > > The event "thread dis-association" is not relevant to anyone else, not > even to the TX. The TX DOESN'T CARE that it is associated with n > threads or not. >
Actually it MUST care. The TX needs to interrupt threads on a TX timeout. But you're right about the performance irrelevance. There's nothing really expensive going on, nor should there be. Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
