db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-733) Starvation in RAFContainer.readPage()
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:47:18 GMT
Mike Matrigali wrote:
> You have raised some issues about this patch.  In the apache
> commit/review model should I be raising a vote on the patch.  I
> think this is basically do you feel strongly enough to vote -1
> on such a vote.

Any patch implictly has a vote, there is no need to raise such a thing.
If I wanted to vote -1 I would do so.

> I don't think Knut plans on building a separate module for this
> locking stuff, at least not until it is used in more than one place.
> He should comment.
> I am ok with the patch, and would go foward with his subsequent
> patch recently submitted as it addressed some of my concerns (I have
> not had a chance yet to review it).  I agree the separate module
> approach is
> better, but that is not what was submitted.  I believe I would
> not commit a proliferation of the same kinds of changes in multiple
> files.
> I am hoping that this patch leads to more work in this area, identifying
> the next bottleneck and next change and it may become clearer what major
> changes need to happen.

Agreed, though it does concern me a little that there is an existing
mechanism for ensuring single threaded access to an object with queuing.
 It seems that one of the reasons it was not used was that someone had a
question about if it could be used, but that question was not rasied on
the list until after the patch was submitted and committed.

I don't want to see a trend where people add code that replicates
existing internal functionality because they don't understand the
existing functionality and never ask about it on the list.


View raw message