Stefan
On Monday, Jan 27, 2003, at 13:08 US/Pacific, Bill Burke wrote:
-----Original Message-----Actually it MUST care. The TX needs to interrupt threads on a TX timeout.
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?
I know I wrote the original version of the code.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.
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.
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
------------------------------------------------------- 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