That is a matter that should be solved by the cache provider where really needed.
-- Fabio Maulo El 11/11/2010, a las 10:00, Aaron Boxer <[email protected]> escribió: > Thanks, Fabio. I understand the need for locks, I am just wondering > why there are two > locks, the local lock and the cache lock, in the case of multiple > clients and a distributed cache. > > Certain cache providers, like memcached, do not provide locks, so you > would need some other locking > mechanism. For a farm of servers running the current version of NH, > using memcached, > with each server using a local lock, there wouldn't really be any > locking across servers. > Only locking for multiple threads on each server. > > --Jorge > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: >> In web even a single app have to deal with multi threads >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >> >> El 11/11/2010, a las 02:41, Jorge <[email protected]> escribió: >> >>> Hello! >>> I was poring over the NH cache code, and was wondering about the >>> >>> lock (_lockObject) >>> { >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> construct that is used in ReadWriteCache.cs when getting and putting >>> values to the cache. >>> >>> _lockObject is a local object, so it doesn't seem to make sense to >>> lock >>> on this for a cache shared among multiple NH clients. >>> >>> Shouldn't it suffice to lock on the cache's distributed lock? >>> >>> Another question: >>> >>> put locks both _lockObject and the cache lock, but get only locks >>> _lockObject, >>> and does not lock the cache lock. It is commented out. Why is this? >>> >>> Any insight into this would be very helpful. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
