ug.
This mutex implementation is pretty bad: serializes all create/acquire
calls through a synchronized *static* method *and* it looks like it has its
own threading bugs.
It's not really a mutex either; more like a little namespace lock.
I'll see if I can scare up a/o write some better synchronization primitives.
PaulO.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:46 PM
To: Turbine
Subject: Re: Refreshable Cache
on 8/8/2000 1:58 PM, "Nissim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just commited the first set of revisions for the refreshable cache.
> You use it the same way you use the existing cache except instead of
> using CachedObject, you use RefreshableCachedObject, and then you must
> pass it an Object which implements Refreshable (just needs a public void
> refresh()).
>
> When we were discussing this in the list, there were some more features
> that people are asking for. I also have another addition I want to
> discuss:
>
> 1) Add a read/write lock object for accessing the items in the cache.
> This will prevent multiple threads from creating the same cached object
> at the same time.
You can probably use the Mutex code here:
http://www.working-dogs.com/cvsweb/index.cgi/jserv_whiteboard/src/java/org/a
pache/java/lang/Mutex.java?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
