On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:03, Ivan Arabadzhiev
wrote:
> BTW Could I "reroute" the .net client to fbclient.dll v 2.5. (calling it
> embedded on connection) and will it break if I were to use it in multiple
> threads (or is most of the code native and therefore thread safe) ?
I don't think so. Ther
Alexander
--
From: "Jiri Cincura"
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:55 AM
To: "For users and developers of the Firebird .NET providers"
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] A "thread-safety" workarround
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 18:54, Ivan A
Mon, 03 May 2010 12:55:16 +0300, Jiri Cincura :
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 18:54, Ivan Arabadzhiev
> wrote:
>> Actually I just don`t like the idea of unnesesary connections(I have a
>> thing about wasted resources) so I use just one, doing one thing at a
>> time
>> on different threads(gui or ba
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 18:54, Ivan Arabadzhiev
wrote:
> Actually I just don`t like the idea of unnesesary connections(I have a
> thing about wasted resources) so I use just one, doing one thing at a time
> on different threads(gui or background). I find the idea useful and
> thought other people
Well maybe "thread-safety" is not the exact term to use - what I ment was
an object, which will not break if accessed by multiple threads (not
actually capable of doing >=2 things at once).
As for my scenario - it is relatively simple :
Most of the time - users do not need the database itself
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 14:35, Ivan Arabadzhiev
wrote:
> (and I hate mutexes) :). I guess I`ll get some sort of
If you mean the Mutex class, then this class isn't the best choice in
many scenarios. It's doing too much. But in general I don't believe in
mut-ex at all. It's wasting resources blocki
Hi,
Haven`t really thought about the ADO .NET specificatian actually
(wasntme). The idea of using RWLS instead of Mutex is based on my current
"coding style", since I was looking mostly at thread-proofing the
FbConnection object itself(at lowest possible lvl, and maybe
FbTransaction, but no
Really, really sorry about the previous post but I guess I hit some sort
of "quick send" button on the Opera :(
To say it shorter - you are probably right, but I still believe in
thread-safety (and I hate mutexes) :). I guess I`ll get some sort of
wrapper for the provider to handle threads .
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 18:18, Ivan Arabadzhiev
wrote:
> Hi,
> I`ve asked before (and yes, I remember the provider is not thread safe),
> but I recently started using the 3.5 framework and was hit by a lightning.
> Could the FirebirdConnection object get a public "ReaderWriterLockSlim"
> member? I
Hi,
I`ve asked before (and yes, I remember the provider is not thread safe),
but I recently started using the 3.5 framework and was hit by a lightning.
Could the FirebirdConnection object get a public "ReaderWriterLockSlim"
member? It would be just about one line of code (definition ...), and
10 matches
Mail list logo
