Hi all !

I spent some time searching documentation about the thread-safety status of DataContext, i found some answers on this mailing list but i would like to know some details :

I have a big application (Eclipse RCP based) which monitors a database, so i have to poll the database each 10 seconds. To be simple i have a single DataContext in my App in : Session->getDataContext() and i created an API that look like

public static List<User> getAll()
{
   SelectQuery q = new SelectQuery(User.class);
  try {
           return (List<User>)Session.getDataContext().performQuery(q);
        } catch(CayenneRuntimeException e  {
           //manage exception
       }
}

So everywhere the API use a single DataContext no bound to a thread.

Naturally to be reactive the application fetch the data from the database in a background thread (actually there is one background thread for each view in the application), and what i've seen is that read operations are thread-safe within a DataContext so i don't care and all threads use the API and so the same DataContext.

Here comes the complex part : I need this single DataContext to have a good cache in my app, and because the application is 90% visualization and only 10% modifications, so i just had to find a thread-safe workaround for writing data.
I tried some solutions :
- Bind a DC per thread is not a good solution because all my fetching is in background threads so the main Session DC (in the UI thread) is never updated. - I have tried to create a childDataContext bound to the current thread for writing, but i had some strange behaviors, and i don't know if the flushToParent() is thread safe ?

So i would like to know if the new LifecycleListener can be used to "lock" the DataContext while writing, to have a single thread-safe R/W DataContext like :

dataContext.getEntityResolver().getCallbackRegistry().addDefaultListener(new LifecycleListener(){

               Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();

               public void postPersist(Object entity) {
                   lock.unlock();
               }
               public void postRemove(Object entity) {
                   lock.unlock();
               }
               public void postUpdate(Object entity) {
                   lock.unlock();
               }
               public void prePersist(Object entity) {
                   lock.lock();
               }
               public void preRemove(Object entity) {
                   lock.lock();
               }
               public void preUpdate(Object entity) {
                   lock.lock();
               }
});

Do you think it can be a good solution ?

Thanks.

Laurent Marchal.

Reply via email to