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
