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
