Hi Marcel, This part [1] from the specification makes me thinking that in general there should not be dependencies between listeners because "order of events within a bundle and the order of event bundles is not guaranteed"
[1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/12_Observation.html#12.4.1 Event Ordering Regards, Miroslav On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Marcel Reutegger <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > this would change existing behavior and may break application code > when there are dependencies between listeners and how/when > they receive events. > > I'm also not sure if your proposed change is in line with the spec. > > Regards > Marcel > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Miroslav Smiljanic [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Freitag, 12. Oktober 2012 13:57 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: ObservationDispatcher - dispatch queued events in separate > > threads > > > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering what would be argument not to distribute queued events in > > "ObservationManager" in separate threads. > > I mean after reading queued action, use thread from pool to serve > > EventConsumer.consumeEvents(action.getEventStates()); > > > > I saw the case where one of the listeners was taking to much time to > finis his > > operation letting all other to wait. > > > > Can someone give me light here? Thanks. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Miroslav > > -- Best regards, Miroslav
