On Apr 6, 2005 2:13 AM, M�lanie Bats <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Oliver Zeigermann a �crit : > > > All this would be in the lock manager and would not require changes to > > the lock classes. > > In order to understand correctly how to implement the solution to my > problem, I looked at the implementation of the GenericLock class. I have > a few questions about it. > > As far as I understand, a GenericLock is associated to a resourceId (the > object _being_ locked, which in my problem will be an interval). When > ones want to get a lock, either read or write, on this resourceId, the > acquire() method is called. The ownerId is the object that _wants_ the > lock (in my problem, will be a Thread). Am I right ?
Yes. > I have the feeling that a GenericLock object has to be associated to an > other object (the resourceId), for which it manages the lock. For > example, if I define a MessageMailbox object, I could associate a > GenericLock to it to handle the locking issues. Yes. > However, in my case, it is a bit different. The objects I am accessing > are the nodes of an XML tree. However, I don't want to lock each node > independently, but instead allocate dynamically intervals of nodes being > accessed. > > Using the interval as the resourceId does not seem to be the right > solution : the object being protected by the lock is not the interval > itself, but rather the nodes covered by the interval. I'm not sure if > it's all clear, but I think this small detail changes pretty much > everything. I suppose what you want is some sort of hierarchical lock? Like if a parent is locked the children are locked as well? Is that true? Oliver --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
