• 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: Concurrent request handling
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Concurrent request handling


  • Subject: Re: Concurrent request handling
  • From: Mark Wardle <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:39:38 +0100

Thanks for this. I'm doing a quick code review!

b/w

Mark

On 5 April 2011 18:48, Chuck Hill <email@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Mark Wardle wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There have been a number of threads discussing this runtime option. I
>> think the consensus opinion was that although it is off by default, it
>> is better switched on.
>
> I think it is off by default to match the previous (now ancient) functionality.
>
>
>> Presumably there are some basic additional rules to follow.
>
> The EOF Commandments (as usual) plus:
>
> Don't Do Stupid Things
>
>
>
>> For instance, AFAIK components will not be shared by multiple threads
>> as they will be instantiated as one goes along or will be returned
>> from the page cache as part of a single session - and as one session
>> will be handled by only one thread, this is fine. How does concurrent
>> handling interact with stateful and stateless components?
>
> Stateful are always session specific so safe by design.  Stateless are also safe, transparently, see Practical WebObjects for the details if you want.
>
>
>> Perhaps more of an issue is that code within my EOF classes may be
>> executed by more than one thread at a time. I use lazy initialisation
>> but there is a race condition there. Fortunately, most of the time
>> there are no side-effects and running that code twice would have no
>> significant deleterious effect. For situations where it would matter I
>> would assume protecting lazy initialisation with a double check and a
>> synchronised block for the inner check would be fine? Is that
>> interpretation correct?
>
> I think that synchronised is what you want.
>
>
>> Are there other commandments?
>
>
> Don't Do Stupid Things  :-)  Which boils down to don't share objects that are not thread-safe, or writable data, at the global level unless you have appropriate protection.  Global being either static members or instance variables on your application.  Shared, non-thread safe formatters are a common mistake.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> --
> Chuck Hill             Senior Consultant / VP Development
>
> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
> http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Dr. Mark Wardle
Specialist registrar, Neurology
Cardiff, UK
 _______________________________________________
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: 
 >Concurrent request handling (From: Mark Wardle <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Concurrent request handling (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: PHP Customer Request
  • Next by Date: Re: Latest WOWODC news
  • Previous by thread: Re: Concurrent request handling
  • Next by thread: Trouble with form
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread