jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jackrabbit and multithread access to nodes | design motivations | jcr2
Date Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:28:56 GMT
hi alejandro,

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Alejandro Gomez
<alejandro.gomez@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I deleted the mysql tables and some files in the JKR repo, and now I
> have a cleaner perspective of the facts I described in my first email.
>
> I ran a test that adds nodes to a same parent - concurrently with
> different sessions-  and everything was right.
>
> I ran a test that adds a new string property to a same node  -
> concurrently with different sessions -  and everything was right.
>
> I ran a test that modifies one property in one unique node -
> concurrently with different sessions -  and I obtained:
>
> javax.jcr.InvalidItemStateException:
> 00da5eb0-d7ea-41dc-aff4-2dd8940caab3/{}propertyToChange has been
> modified externally

this is expected and per design. see e.g. [0] for a related discussion on
the mailing list. jackrabbit's behavior is compliant with the JCR 2.0
spec ([1)).

[0] http://www.mail-archive.com/users@jackrabbit.apache.org/msg16522.html
[1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/10_Writing.html#10.11.6 Invalid States

cheers
stefan

>
> I hope this help to clarify my question.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Alejandro Gomez
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stefan Guggisberg
> <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi alejandro,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Alejandro Gomez
>> <alejandro.gomez@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been working with jackrabbit (2.x.x) more than a year, and some
>>> questions arised when I faced the multithreading aspects of
>>> Jackrabbit.
>>>
>>> I've found issues trying to add nodes (on different threads)  that are
>>> children of a same parent.
>>>
>>> I've found issues trying to modify a node from concurrent sessions on
>>> different threads.
>>
>> adding children to a parent node does modify the state of the parent node.
>> so the situation is the same here as in your previous example.
>>
>> could you please elaborate what kind of issues/behaviour you're refering to?
>>
>>>
>>> And after all, I did read a LOT of mailing lists archives, and I found
>>> that some people encourage to implement explicit locking methods.
>>>
>>> My question is: What are the design/architecture motivations behind
>>> this behavior?
>>
>> again, what behavior? could you please be more specific?
>>
>> cheers
>> stefan
>>
>>> Is that related with some JCR 2 spec item? What would
>>> be the "best practices" if any?
>>>
>>> I would LOVE if some of the core developers answer to this topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance to everyone!
>>>
>>>
>>> Alejandro Gomez
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lo que creas de los demás estará signado por lo que creas de ti mismo,
>>> y del mismo modo los hechos de tu vida.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lo que creas de los demás estará signado por lo que creas de ti mismo,
> y del mismo modo los hechos de tu vida.
>

Mime
View raw message