• 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: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?


  • Subject: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • From: Ralf Schuchardt <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:15:31 +0100


Patrick Middleton schrieb:

And so to the subject line of this message: "x-webobjects-request-id
lacking uniqueness?"  Of those 24 chars, the first 16 are effectively
fixed whenever httpd starts,

> and I appear to be seeing values being
reused for the last 8.

It sounds as if you are dropping the first 16 chars when comparing the unique IDs? This would be a bad idea, as there can be more httpds at the same time, each with his own counter.


 I'd guess that either the shared memory or
the locking isn't working as expected.

The adapter code is using standard pthreads calls for locking and it seems not doing anything wrong.


What I am doing is reporting a bug in the WebObjects API adaptor, with
the circumstances as how how I encountered it. It might be possible to
deduce, for example, that the application list etc (see config.c in the
Adaptors project) is in shared memory, while uniqueID_counter (see
transaction.c) is not in shared memory, but should be, if we cared.

Putting the uniqueID_counter into shared memory seems unnecessary, it should be protected by process id and process start time (as long as you are using only one webserver).


Are you really seeing _complete_ unique ids reused?

Ralf
_______________________________________________
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: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
      • From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>
References: 
 >x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>)
 >Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: Simon <email@hidden>)
 >Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Timestamps and PostgreSQL
  • Next by Date: Re: Timestamps and PostgreSQL
  • Previous by thread: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Next by thread: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread