That is really annoying to me, but I am not sure what we can do to successfully resolve this issue.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > It is more than that, actually, we handle some things in the peek directly > (to support move to sub queue.I think that this is going to change, so we > only ever deal with things in a transaction after a recieve > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How would you do that, and how would this help? >> >> the actual problem is that we can get into a situation where we process a >> message on several threads on the same time. >> It just happened to be the case that this is not something that we >> actually do (because receive will take care of that), but it seems like an >> aweful lot of waste to do it in this fashion. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Mike Nichols >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Putting the Thread Id in the message itself to be evaluated onpeek? >>> >>> On Jan 24, 11:06 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > The threading model for the bus is done by spawning multiple Begin Peek >>> > calls. >>> > That is causing a problem because when a message arrives, we get >>> notified >>> > for the _same_ message on all threads. >>> > I am not sure how to resolve this issue. >>> > Any ideas? >>> >>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
