Jason Kary wrote:
>
> If this is the case then why would a person not use 'synchronized'?
There has been no attempt to make torque objects thread safe.
john mcnally
>
> Take Care
> Jason Kary
>
> Bartek Walter wrote:
>
> > jb> This is part of source code of BaseXXX
> >
> > jb> ...
> > jb> public void save(DBConnection dbCon) throws Exception
> > jb> {
> > jb> if (!alreadyInSave)
> > jb> {
> > jb> alreadyInSave = true;
> > jb> if (isModified())
> > jb> {
> > jb> if (isNew())
> > jb> {
> > jb> XXXPeer.doInsert((XXX)this, dbCon);
> > jb> setNew(false);
> > jb> }
> > jb> else
> > jb> {
> > jb> XXXPeer.doUpdate((XXX)this, dbCon);
> > jb> }
> > jb> }
> > jb> alreadyInSave = false; // Why this line? It's just saved, right?
> > jb> }
> > jb> }
> > jb> ...
> >
> > it is a kind of a semaphore, I think, in order to avoid race
> > conditions when saving the same object concurrently.
> > This method is not synchronized probably for efficiency purposes, so
> > the semaphore does the job.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Bartek Walter
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
