Nope, Concurrent is a free for all and should rarely be used. If it  
is used it should
be used by people who know what they are doing :-)

On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:12 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:

> Ok, thanks!
>
> Curious now, so there is some kind of transaction isolation then? Is
> this basically the same as the traditional 'serializable' isolation
> that prevents any kind of dirty reads to the changes that haven't
> been applied yet? Are those changes also not applied to the local
> data structures or is this only cluster-related?
>
> On 07 Sep 2007, at 08:03, Steven Harris wrote:
>
>> The transaction is an atomic set of changes that either will be
>> applied to the cluster in whole
>> or not at all.
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:01 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm, do you mean here that they instate memory barriers to ensure
>>> that those instructions aren't reordered or missed in a cache on
>>> another node/thread? I thought Terracotta didn't do anything
>>> transaction-related (isolation, commit-rollback, ...)?
>>>
>>> On 07 Sep 2007, at 07:50, Steven Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> concurrent locks provide transaction boundaries with no locking. In
>>>> that sense they are miss-named because
>>>> they aren't actually locks
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In general, one thing I've been wondering about: what's the
>>>>> difference between using concurrent locks and using no locking at
>>>>> all?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07 Sep 2007, at 02:58, Gary Keim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently only read and write autolocks can be auto-synchronized.
>>>>>> Does it
>>>>>> not makes sense to allow concurrent and synchronous-write
>>>>>> autolocks
>>>>>> to also
>>>>>> be auto-synchronized?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ConfigLockLevel.AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED_READ
>>>>>> ConfigLockLevel.AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED_WRITE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't there also be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ConfigLockLevel.AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED_SYNCHRONOUS_WRITE
>>>>>> ConfigLockLevel.AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED_CONCURRENT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rational: the concept of automatically introducing a monitor is
>>>>>> orthogonal
>>>>>> to the type of lock on that monitor.
>
> --
> Geert Bevin
> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org
> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com
> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org
> Music and words - http://gbevin.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> tc-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev

_______________________________________________
tc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev

Reply via email to