Hi, On 3/12/07, Marcel Reutegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jukka Zitting wrote: > ACK, the key is the write lock on SharedItemStateManager. In fact, do > we even need the database persistence managers to be transactional > over multiple method calls? I can't follow you here. what exactly do you mean by weakening transaction requirements on the persistence manager? e.g. reading of uncommitted items?
I think Jukka means the underlying DB already ensures transactional capability, therefore DatabasePersistenceManager could still be transactional without a write lock on JR's side. It seems achievable but I wonder if the performance gain is noticeable or make things worse (we would use instead different PreparedStatement for instance). IMO it seems we don't really know where the bottlenecks are. By this, I mean no cold hard facts. BR, Nico my blog! http://www.deviant-abstraction.net !!
