[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12881593#action_12881593
]
Jukka Zitting commented on JCR-890:
-----------------------------------
The SessionOperation mechanism is meant to synchronize only session-related JCR
API calls, so unlike with XA transactions there should never be a need for two
threads to use the same lock concurrently. I'm using a java.util.concurrent
lock instead of a synchronized block only to enable more accurate logging of
potential concurrency problems.
> concurrent read-only access to a session
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-890
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-890
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jackrabbit-core
> Reporter: David Nuescheler
> Assignee: Jukka Zitting
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: session-class-move-norename.patch,
> session-class-move.patch
>
>
> Even though the JCR specification does not make a statement about Sessions
> shared across a number of threads I think it would be great for many
> applications if we could state that sharing a read-only session is supported
> by Jackrabbit.
> On many occasions in the mailing lists we stated that there should not be an
> issue with sharing a read-only session, however I think it has never been
> thoroughly tested or even specified as a "design goal".
> If we can come to an agreement that this is desirable I think it would be
> great to start including testcases to validate that behaviour and update the
> documentation respectively.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
