Re: [Jdbm-developer] Intention locking

[Alex B. <boi...@in...>]

Ok, just wanted some clarification.  If you believe you'll have a need
for them, let's have 'em.   I'm also behind a more capable architecture
that you describe.

alex


Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:

>No, I have not identified a need for intention/implicit locking for btree or
>htree.  However I am looking to support (and use) more than a flat resource
>model myself, so that is a strong motivation for me.
>
>Jdbm has a history of small, light and tight.  Keeping to that profile is
>important for many uses, but I am interested in a more extensible
>architecture since I want to do more with it.  I think that a framework
>layer supporting collections, one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many
>associations, indices over attributes in collections, etc. would be a
>typical consumer of an extended locking model such as I am proposing.  That
>is certainly what I want to do with it.
>
>I assume that you want to do deadlock detection, even with just a flat
>resource model, right?  What do you see as the minimum locking model then,
>an integration of a multiple-readers, exclusive writer lock on a per
>resource (record) basis with an online deadlock detection algorithm?
>
>-bryan
>  
>