>so if you call store:get, store:put or store:write in the first process, a second process will not wait until the store operations are completed.
In non XQuery contexts a semaphore [1] might be used to ensure that my other threads don't get between a get and put. In the spirit of blurring the XQuery Java boundaries I tried [2]. It seems to work. Is it dangerous? [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Semaphore.html [2] declare namespace Semphore ="java:java.util.concurrent.Semaphore"; declare function local:config-update($k as xs:string,$v as item(),$sem) { Semphore:acquire($sem), try{ let $u:=store:get("config")=> map:put($k, $v) return store:put("config",$u) }catch * { trace("Errrr",$err:description) } ,Semphore:release($sem) }; let $sem:=Semphore:new(1,true()) let $s1 := store:put("config", map{}) let $s2 := xquery:fork-join( for $i in (1 to 100) return function(){ let $r:=(prof:sleep(10),$i) return local:config-update( string($i),$r,$sem) } ) return count(map:keys(store:get("config"))) On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 14:09, Marco Lettere <m.lett...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, thanks for the clarification. > > M. > On 28/01/25 15:08, Christian Grün wrote: > > Sorry Christian, do you mean *not* synchronized? >> > With »synchronized«, I meant to refer to a lower level: You will not end > up with a corrupt key/value store or with I/O conflicts when accessing and > updating the store via multiple threads. However, as you have already > observed, multiple operations are not executed in a well-defined order, so > if you call store:get, store:put or store:write in the first process, a > second process will not wait until the store operations are completed. > >
