Hi!
> Actually, I commented out the call to filesystemclose in
> SoftRelFilesCache. While looking at the FileSystem implementation I
> realized that the way close is implemented is not thread safe and
> can't be called while the system is running. I believe the fix for
> this is non-trivial.
That is strange, there should be no real problem if it is not thread safe as no
other thread is holding a reference to a fileObject any more.
Anyway, I think (and I had this on my todo to discuss this earlier, but my work
load is still way too high :-( ) all this needs a major refactoring.
First of all, instead of FileManager.resolveFile() we should introduce
FileManager.mount(path) FileManager.unmount(FileObject).
mount will always create a new file-system which will be kept only within the
FileObject.
A file-system then will go away when the last FileObject is out of scope, or
when one calls FileManager.unmount(FileObject).
All the synchronization stuff might be possible to be removed and leaf to the
user application. I'd say, 90% of the use-case of VFS do not need
synchronization as there is no need to reuse the same instance of the
FileObject between threads. But probably I get this wrong.
Given we keep the FileManager.resolveFile() (which then routes to .mount(path))
the side effect would be:
1) VFS.getManager().resolveFile("/tmp") != VFS.getManager().resolveFile("/tmp")
2) VFS.getManager().mount("/tmp") != VFS.getManager().mount("/tmp")
3) FileObject fo = VFS.getManager().mount("/tmp");
fo.resolveFile("a") == fo.resolveFile("a")
4) FileObject fo2 = VFS.getManager().mount("/tmp");
fo2.resolveFile("a") == fo2.resolveFile("a")
fo.resolveFile("a") != fo2.resolveFile("a")
If we could argue that, the internals of VFS might become much easier again,
and stuff like LRUFilesCache or even NullFilesCache might start to work.
Sure, with a NullFilesCache then even 3 is not true, but this is expected then.
Hmmmm .... If we would like to go that way I might try to spent a night or two
to implement it. With VFS 2.0 it is THE time to do it, but yes, it might delay
the release again. This is something which happend with VFS always, probably a
bad spell - or just me ;-)
Ciao,
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
