Re: [Firebird-net-provider] A thread-safety workarround

2010-04-17 Thread Ivan Arabadzhiev
Hi, Haven`t really thought about the ADO .NET specificatian actually (wasntme). The idea of using RWLS instead of Mutex is based on my current coding style, since I was looking mostly at thread-proofing the FbConnection object itself(at lowest possible lvl, and maybe FbTransaction, but

[Firebird-net-provider] [FB-Tracker] Created: (DNET-311) Connection pool cleanup thread rework as Timer

2010-04-17 Thread Jiri Cincura (JIRA)
Connection pool cleanup thread rework as Timer -- Key: DNET-311 URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/DNET-311 Project: .NET Data provider Issue Type: Improvement Components:

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] A thread-safety workarround

2010-04-17 Thread Jiri Cincura
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 14:35, Ivan Arabadzhiev intelru...@unrealsoft.net wrote: (and I hate mutexes) :). I guess I`ll get some sort of If you mean the Mutex class, then this class isn't the best choice in many scenarios. It's doing too much. But in general I don't believe in mut-ex at all. It's

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] A thread-safety workarround

2010-04-17 Thread Ivan Arabadzhiev
Well maybe thread-safety is not the exact term to use - what I ment was an object, which will not break if accessed by multiple threads (not actually capable of doing =2 things at once). As for my scenario - it is relatively simple : Most of the time - users do not need the database itself