Hi!
dan benanav wrote:
> I think it is not well known that deadlock can occur in subtle ways
> when
> pessimistic concurrency is used.
<snip>
Well, that depends on what you mean by "well-known". The scenario you
described is known in the sense that it has been a known feature of
pessimistic locking since the beginning of concurrent programming. No
news there. The solutions for this problem are equally "known".
If by "not well-known" you mean that "most programmers don't know about
it", that's a different thing altogether, and which may be true. I don't
know about the rest of the world, but this is one of the basic things we
learn in the CS-classes here at the university.
> The misconception is that one doesn't need to consider deadlock with
> EJB!
Where have you seen this misconception stated? Has anyone ever said that
EJB brings magic to the table that somehow solves this? I don't think
so..
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dreambean.com
Question reality
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
