• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Another concurrency problem
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another concurrency problem


  • Subject: Re: Another concurrency problem
  • From: John Larson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:26:37 -0500

You guys think of eveything.  My most recent implementation is working well, and in retrospect I really shouldn't have expected my scheduler ec to play well with the session ecs in the same osc.  That ec can stay locked for 15 seconds at a time while the session ecs may be locked hundreds of time during that time.  Also there are thousands of transactions at a time.  I think I was just asking for trouble putting dogs and cats in the same room.

I didn't worry much about synchronization since the intersection of changed data between the two stores is small, but I am getting object not found errors now when the session fires faults on the inconsequential objects attached to relationships that the scheduler is making.  (inconsequential in that the session components doesnt need them to do their thing.)  I imagine its because there is no synchronization between the stores.  Instead of setting the tolerant gid pattern property, can I get a more reliable solution with the Synchronizer class?  If so, does that go in the Application constructor to make sure the coordinators get hooked up?  Lastly, I assume that the default ERXApp object store is a Erxosc?

If I can figure it out, I'd really think I could contribute to the wiki on this topic if you'd all like.

John

On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden> wrote:

As long as you use Wonder's ERXObjectStoreCoordinatorSynchronizer class, notifications are all taken care of for you. According to Mike Schrag, this has been well tested under heavy load and I have seen zero issues with it ...... in fact you will have issues if you don't use it.

On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Ken Anderson wrote:


On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:

2) Use a separate ObjectStoreCoordinator for your background thread to avoid locking conflicts

What are the downsides of doing this?  I have to admit, my object store coordinator recollection is sketchy.  Do you have to implement your own method for notifications between coordinators?

Thanks,
Ken

 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Another concurrency problem
      • From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Another concurrency problem (From: John Larson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Another concurrency problem (From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Another concurrency problem (From: Ken Anderson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Another concurrency problem (From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Yet another concurrency question
  • Next by Date: [ANN] New revision of WO tutorial released
  • Previous by thread: Re: Another concurrency problem
  • Next by thread: Re: Another concurrency problem
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread