On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:43:59 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The OTM layer is alpha state, so there will be much of "unchecked" code. > Currently nobody works on OTM and for OJB 1.1 we try to move most > services (e.g. locking,...) to the kernel (org.apache.broker.*). You > could find the "old moved" locking version in org.apache.broker.locking.* > This version (used by odmg-api) isn't as smart as the OTM version (any > help to include the LockWaitStrategy from OTM is appreciated ;-)).
Thanks. This makes more sense, I still do not understand what SerializableStrategy is doing?! Could anyone explain? Anyway, it looks as if the locks never wait, right? Concerning the LockWaitStrategy I am currently extending Jakarta Commons Transaction to allow it's lock manager to allow both blocking and non blocking usage. I have just finished some sort of deadlock detection minus testing. All this and timeouts for active locks will most likely be in Commons Transaction 1.1. If you are interested I will let you know as soon as it is in CVS for inspection and give more guidance. > I haven't think much about #sleep versus #wait but I think using #wait > will be more efficiently. Well, sleep is not terminated by notify. This means the code will never know when a lock has really been released, but waits for a predetermined amount of time. Obviously, this unnecessarily limits concurrency. But maybe there is another reason for doing it this way which I am unaware of. Oliver --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
