Hi, On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you think your work on JCR-2699 will make reads truly concurrent with > no blocking or will there always be a part of the code base that is > essentially single threaded?
The one big remaining synchronization block is that in the persistence managers where they control access to the underlying persistence store. This was a hard requirement for our older database persistence managers that had to synchronize access to the potentially thread-unsafe single JDBC connection they were using. Thanks to the connection pooling support contributed in JCR-1456 we should now be able to avoid also that problem. I'll be looking at that shortly. Of course, the next concurrency bottleneck will then be the underlying persistence store and ultimately the disk where the content gets stored, but there are existing solutions (clustering, RAID, etc.) for that. BR, Jukka Zitting
