Hi Marcel,

This part [1] from the specification makes me thinking that in general there should not be dependencies between listeners because "order of events within a bundle and the order of event bundles is not guaranteed"

[1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/12_Observation.html#12.4.1 Event Ordering


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Marcel Reutegger <mreutegg@adobe.com> wrote:

this would change existing behavior and may break application code
when there are dependencies between listeners and how/when
they receive events.

I'm also not sure if your proposed change is in line with the spec.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miroslav Smiljanic [mailto:smmiroslav@gmail.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 12. Oktober 2012 13:57
> To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: ObservationDispatcher - dispatch queued events in separate
> threads
> Hi all,
> I was wondering what would be argument not to distribute queued events in
> "ObservationManager"  in separate threads.
> I mean after reading queued action, use thread from pool to serve
> EventConsumer.consumeEvents(action.getEventStates());
> I saw the case where one of the listeners was taking to much time to finis his
> operation letting all other to wait.
> Can someone give me light here? Thanks.
> --
> Best regards,
> Miroslav

Best regards,