Hi, I myself really like the idea of the DistributedCacheConcurrency. (Of course, I'm being a little selfish since I have an immediate use for it.) Christian, if you need any help to finish, and/or test it, please let me know. I have an application already written which would be a good test for this.
Gavin, since your hesitant to add yet another dependency into the codebase, have you thought about adding a "hibernate-optional.jar" to the project that could contain non-core, but useful things like this? Jon... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christian Meunier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "hibernate list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: DistributedCacheConcurrencyStrategy > I *finally* had a chance to look over your work on this: pretty cool, I like > it. Not yet convinced that we want to introduce a JavaGroups dependency into > the main codebase, but you could work on me and I might capitulate :) > > > I thought how to achieve maximum flexibility and keep a clean code for the > cache, i came up with the following > > design that makes more sense IMHO than using a > DistributedCacheConcurrency: > > > (1) Define a lockserver interface > > (2) Implement a local lockserver > > (3) Implement a centralized lockserver > > (4) Optionally implement a distributed lockserver ( the one i actually > did but i believe centralized one makes more sense) > > (5) Refactor the ReadWriteCacheConcurrency: [snip] > > (6) Refactor the <jcs-cache> tag so we can: [snip] > > Yup, all thats quite acceptable. > > > (7) Add a remove method to the Cache interface so we allow implementation > such the proposed "lightweight readwrite" ( see my previous email) to use > it. Clearly state in the javadoc tag that using this method an > implementation can not fully ensure tx isolation in all case. > > Sounds reasonable. > > > > What is the correct behaviour regarding the lockserver, i believe i did > something wrong in the distributable prototype, i mean when we try to > acquire a lock and the server responds saying the object is already locked. > Should we then go to the database ( what i currently do ) or wait and retry. > > I believe the latter is the correct answer. > > Nope, we should go straight to the database. Hibernate threads never ever > wait for each other. > > Thanks Christian, sorry for not addressing this sooner. Just been *very* > busy..... > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ hibernate-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
