Jody Garnett a écrit :
> confirmed - I used Collections.syncrhonizedMap( new HashMap() ) when I
> ported your code to Java 1.4 - will that do?
Yes I think it should work. Lets just keep whatever "TODO" comment that
contains
the "J2SE 1.5" keyword (since I plan to perform a search of "J2SE 1.5"
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> I guess that we should put the discussion on a rest for while... The
> topic of this post is mostly to insist that your requirements were
> understood from the begining (I believe). My feeling is that I failed
> to explain why the technical solution - ReadWriteLock -
I guess that we should put the discussion on a rest for while... The topic of
this post is mostly to insist that your requirements were understood from the
begining (I believe). My feeling is that I failed to explain why the technical
solution - ReadWriteLock - is an unnecessary overhead for tho
Hi Jesse,
I do think it all comes down to line 20; and what is being locked ...
Regardless we will hook up both implementations, and stress test them -
that way we can measure what is better (and if workers end up piling
up). I only have access to one dual core machine - so we may end up
askin
Pretty picture Jody,
I thought that this conversation wasn't crazy enough so I'm throwing
my understanding into the mix. ;-)
Problem that I see with Martin's solution:
Multiple referencing object cannot be created concurrently because
line 20 acquires the lock on the table. Any other threa
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Sigh... One of us is really not understanding the other one point. I
> claim again that *the read lock in ObjectCacheEntry is totally
> useless* in order to prevent the same CRS to be built twice in two
> different threads. Did you understand the workflow I posted tw
