• 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: Connection pooling + WebObjects
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects


  • Subject: Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects
  • From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:09:27 -0400

I am not sure what you mean by "the complications of being in multiple instances". Stack / instance synchronization or not, you still have to handle optimistic locking errors. You have to handle them less frequently if you are synchronizing, but they still have to be handles (or ignored because they happen less frequently if you so choose...).

One thing that gives me pause with respect to multiple, synchronized stacks is that is an an added layer of complexity on top of the already complex concurrency issues. While I trust that you (Mike) have soundly tested this, it adds complexity for a reduction in the frequency of needing to handle something that I must handle anyway. It seems to me that multiple instances are simpler in this respect. It also adds processing overhead for every possible case of an optimistic locking conflict, not just the ones that actually matter. I don't have a clear idea on how that affects the balance of this equation.
By "complications" I do mean optimistic locking ... Optimistic locking is only half the problem. Optimistic locking addresses when I write and I'm out of sync, but if you work on a collaborative app, the other part of the problem is staying in sync in the first place so you don't HAVE that problem (much). I agree you have to deal with the locking failures, but for the apps we typically work on, at least, showing out of date info is a problem. Using multiple stacks is the easier fix for this because you're in-process, so signaling and locking is easier to do. Using multiple instances with Wonder's remote syncing tries to make it transparent, but it's just a hard problem. So, for me, multistack/remotesync is all about user experience. It's not about making our lives (as programmers) easier. One instance/one stack is REALLY easy for us :)

ms

_______________________________________________
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


References: 
 >Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: "Shravan Kumar.M" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: "Shravan Kumar.M" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: That dreaded eclipse NPE again
  • Next by Date: Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects
  • Previous by thread: Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects
  • Next by thread: Re: Connection pooling + WebObjects
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread