Thanks. Yes on both accounts... Leaving it as-is, except broken the complex methods into smaller ones.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/3/11 14:38 , Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I am trying to lean up the RDF shutdown sequence, and while looking >> into that I noticed two things; >> >> * There is an intermediary "commit" between the 'remove Entities' and >> 'update+new entities'. Why isn't this in a single commit? > > I think it is because "remove" actually handles updated RDF as well, i.e. it > clears it away so that updated RDF can replace it. Without the remove in > between I don't think it would work. But try and see what happens. > >> * More importantly, for each call to the >> StateChangeListener.notifyChanges(), the RDF indexer opens and closes >> the connection to the RDF Repository. Exactly how intensive that >> operation is, is hard to follow. Is there any reason why we actually >> do this, or should we keep the connection open? > > One reason is due to concurrency, I think, as you don't want to share a > connection between threads. It's a fairly lightweight thing anyway, AFAICT, > so shouldn't be any problem. > > But again, try and see what happens. IF you do, add synchronized{} around > all of it though, to avoid concurrent use of the connection > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
