How does one do this now? There is no ODatabaseThreadLocal class in 1.7.8.
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:35:44 AM UTC-6, M B wrote:
>
> We've done this quite heavily where we have 2 databases and access is
> spread across many threads and are constantly switching between access of
> either database, nearly always with multiple concurrent threads.
>
> Use the database pooling classes if you can, but you don't have to.
>
> Works fine as long as you make sure the db instance is set active
> appropriately before any access to the database.
>
> ODatabaseThreadLocal.INSTANCE().set( db );
>
> Don't try to pass database documents or database instances across threads.
> get the database instance; Do your reads/writes on one thread and release
> the instance back to the pool.
>
> Failure to to set the instance correctly will result in transaction commit
> failures where you created an object against one database but tried to save
> against a different database. You can also get database corruptions where
> indexes have references to objects that don't exist.
>
> As long as you set the instance correctly it works.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:08:21 PM UTC-4, Jason Nichols wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>> Are there any restrictions or limitations on using multiple embedded
>> OObjectDatabaseTx within a single VM? I'm attempting to create multiple
>> OODB instances like such:
>>
>> odb = new OObjectDatabaseTx("plocal:" + dbPath);
>>
>> Where the dbPath can vary. I end up with multiple OODB instances, but
>> they each same to use the same local db folder, regardless of what path I
>> specify in the constructor.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OrientDB" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
