Re: [Hibernate] RE: DistributedCacheConcurrencyStrategy

[Jon L. <jon...@xe...>]

Hi,

I myself really like the idea of the DistributedCacheConcurrency.  (Of
course, I'm being a little selfish since I have an immediate use for it.)
Christian, if you need any help to finish, and/or test it, please let me
know.  I have an application already written which would be a good test for
this.

Gavin, since your hesitant to add yet another dependency into the codebase,
have you thought about adding a "hibernate-optional.jar" to the project that
could contain non-core, but useful things like this?

Jon...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin King" <ga...@ap...>
To: "Christian Meunier" <vc...@cl...>
Cc: "hibernate list" <hib...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: DistributedCacheConcurrencyStrategy


> I *finally* had a chance to look over your work on this: pretty cool, I
like
> it. Not yet convinced that we want to introduce a JavaGroups dependency
into
> the main codebase, but you could work on me and I might capitulate :)
>
> > I thought how to achieve maximum flexibility and keep a clean code for
the
> cache, i came up with the following
> > design that makes more sense IMHO than using a
> DistributedCacheConcurrency:
>
> > (1) Define a lockserver interface
> > (2) Implement a local lockserver
> > (3) Implement a centralized lockserver
> > (4) Optionally implement a distributed lockserver  ( the one i actually
> did but i believe centralized one makes more sense)
>  > (5) Refactor the ReadWriteCacheConcurrency: [snip]
> > (6) Refactor the <jcs-cache> tag so we can: [snip]
>
> Yup, all thats quite acceptable.
>
> > (7) Add a remove method to the Cache interface so we allow
implementation
> such the proposed "lightweight readwrite" ( see my previous email) to use
> it. Clearly state in the javadoc tag that using this method an
> implementation can not fully ensure tx isolation in all case.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
>
> > What is the correct behaviour regarding the lockserver, i believe i did
> something wrong in the distributable prototype, i mean when we try to
> acquire a lock and the server responds saying the object is already
locked.
> Should we then go to the database ( what i currently do ) or wait and
retry.
> > I believe the latter is the correct answer.
>
> Nope, we should go straight to the database. Hibernate threads never ever
> wait for each other.
>
> Thanks Christian, sorry for not addressing this sooner. Just been *very*
> busy.....
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hib...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
>