>>> 3) If you use OSC synchronization (ERXOSCSynchronizer and ERJGroupsSync) >>> you will still haev the problem of snapshots changing underneath you if you >>> don't lock the OSC. So IMHO, the OptimisticLockAction approach works well >>> ..... and if the approach "ain't broke, why fix it" :-) >> >> I don't use the synchronizer... I think it increases the concurrency chaos >> by several orders of magnitude. :) Anyway, those "critical" OSCs would not >> synchronize, as that would defeat their purpose. > > I think the change notifications synchronize after you unlock the osc, but I > might be mistaken. Perhaps Mike S might shed light on whether a locked OSC > ignores changes or just gets those notifications when it gets unlocked. > Looking at ERXObjectStoreCoordinatorSynchronizer src does not enlighten me > quickly I'm afraid. a lock is a lock ... if you lock the osc, it's not getting updates. internally ERXOSCS acquires an EODBC lock before processing changes, so if you are locking, it's blocking (as expected) the change queue in ERXOSCS. as far as your app is concerned, remote synchronization should look almost exactly like an EC in your app performing those same changes. we actually post ObjectsChangedInStoreNotification ourselves after the changes, in fact.
ms _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
