On 6/5/07, Oliver Zeigermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/6/4, Alexandru Popescu ☀ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 6/4/07, Oliver Zeigermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not deeply into the problem, but why is there locking on the Java
> > side anyway? It really should be possible to get along with DB locks
> > only.
> >
> > Calling the DB from synchronized blocks always bears the danger of
deadlocks.
> >
>
> Basically because the implementation of JCR is not required to work on
> top of a RDBMS. Moreover, the persistence managers have been usually
> created to be used over different persistence solutions (and over
> different RDBMS, which have different locking support/mechanisms).
If that is so, concurrency code really should be inside the individual
persistence solutions and not inside the Jackrabbit core. If it is,
there always is a deadlock hazard.
It is. Maybe before going further you should check the code. If you
have some suggestions I guess everybody would be happy to hear about
different approaches.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
The way to go would be to remove synchronization from Jackrabbits core.
What do you say?
Oliver
