From: Chuck H. <ch...@gl...> - 2009-04-22 17:21:25
|
On Apr 22, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > i seem to recall this was actually just broken before, though? that > the code presumed autolocking but didn't enforce it ... so i think > this is just a check that's saving you from heartache rather than a > new restriction that was introduced. I don't remember why it > doesn't do normal locking inside -- i seem to recall there was > something annoying about it. chuck -- do you remember? Not clearly. There are a few different usage patterns for this. I may just have been trying to preserve / not touch functionality that I was not using. I recall that I ran into problems if I did not have those settings. Chuck > On Apr 22, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Anjo Krank wrote: > >> >> Am 27.02.2009 um 18:25 schrieb chi...@us...: >> >>> + if ( ! ERXEC.defaultAutomaticLockUnlock()) { >>> + throw new RuntimeException("ERXEnterpriseObjectCache requires >>> automatic locking, set >>> er.extensions.ERXEC.defaultAutomaticLockUnlock or " + >>> + "er.extensions.ERXEC.safeLocking in your Properties file"); >>> + } >> >> >> This one is not nice. Now I gotta turn this on for all my projects >> and >> need to re-test everything. >> >> Cheers, Anjo >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and >> around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save >> $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. >> 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. >> Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p >> _______________________________________________ >> Wonder-cvs mailing list >> Won...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-cvs > > > -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Come to WOWODC'09 in San Fran this June! http://www.wocommunity.org/wowodc09/ |