Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michael.d.dick@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.174 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=jVfMVQ+Atbamqkscp4WKmlHGVdFwSQBV5l+2oFERPeM6iE+OhguPsb84g3Aq1HtvHK
         SpGMwqSFhai399Hd7kMOajNlpEj80BID5A0/fJlfF26/Ti2rL67ZqmUBHK9VQDFiwjOg
         0qiCkswiDGsUfC7tvQ0rgd/IPtNrDMY4xFuHU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86e69538-7a88-40dc-92e2-c56c9d2f0847@default>
References: <4C65B447.2010202@apache.org>
 <AANLkTi=H7GWJ6qLTWTEBpH-kMoyOTEh7aM2iq6SOF0H1@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=5AzB1LG_a87dKMcLStcC2Q7ckBfTaGt2-su=H@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C66F36B.2030004@apache.org> <1281966607288-5427904.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <AANLkTi=2fwWdHjyCJ_qkBaakcJtHDzhq59Uo7W+_oiEd@mail.gmail.com>
 <86e69538-7a88-40dc-92e2-c56c9d2f0847@default>
From: Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:33:02 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8espvoNG=zHSi-GR19trRE461Wssa8VWSL6jD@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r985067 -
 /openjpa/trunk/openjpa-slice/src/test/java/org/apache/openjpa/slice/TestQueryMultiThreaded.java
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e7f085dd83d048df6be8e

--0016361e7f085dd83d048df6be8e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

At first glance a single lock should work - removing the sm lock should
prevent deadlocks down the road.

I'm not sure if I can reproduce the problem on my laptop - might have to
wait until I get home to try it out.

Thanks for the pointer to OpenJPA-453 - lots of data there I'll have to read
up a bit.

-mike

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Ravi Palacherla <ravi.palacherla@oracle.com
> wrote:

> This patch does broker lock and in that case, is there a need for sm lock
> too ?
> Can we eliminate the sm lock and rely completely on broker lock?
> The patch for the above is in 453.
>
> Regards,
> Ravi.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Curtis [mailto:curtisr7@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:25 PM
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r985067 -
> /openjpa/trunk/openjpa-slice/src/test/java/org/apache/openjpa/slice/TestQueryMultiThreaded.java
>
> Go ahead and pull the trigger.
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I understand your concern about giving people a false sense of confidence
> -
> > openjpa.Multithreaded requires more than just this fix. OTOH it's going
> to
> > be a while before we have the whole solution.
> >
> > If you don't have a specific concern with the patch I'll go ahead and
> > commit
> > it - I don't see it as dangerous for normal (non openpja.Multithreaded)
> use
> > and we have at least one testcase which depends on it.
> >
> > -mike
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Rick Curtis <curtisr7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My biggest concern with that fix is that it isn't a complete fix for
> the
> > > openjpa.Multithreaded property. It fixes the one one reported bug, but
> > > there
> > > are numerous others out there.
> > >
> > > I'd really like to see someone find some time to come up with a
> complete
> > > multi threaded story for openjpa.
> >
> >
>

--0016361e7f085dd83d048df6be8e--