Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 lists+1214986160035-208411@n2.nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as
 permitted sender)
Message-ID: <1233931028441-2284440.post@n2.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:37:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Philip Aston <philipa@mail.com>
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is the implementation of lock(LockModeType.READ) correct?
In-Reply-To: <1233929408156-2284285.post@n2.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <498A2E95.2060208@oracle.com> <498B8D8A.9090507@oracle.com>
 <1233929408156-2284285.post@n2.nabble.com>


Thanks Pinaki.

I don't think the documented known issues cover my case. The first bullet
point is about the pessimistic lock manager, which I'm not using. The second
bullet is about the read consistency of the locked object - this isn't the
problem either. The last paragraph is again about the pessimistic lock
manager. And I don't see any of the INFO level messages referred to.

I find the documented issues to be reasonable, but I'm afraid I can't say
the same of the read locking implementation.

- Phil


Pinaki Poddar wrote:
> 
> Hi Philip,
>    The points you raise are valid, correct and known. Please refer to [1].
> 
>    By the way, the test case is very neat!
> 
> [1]
> http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/latest/docs/manual/manual.html#ref_guide_locking_issues
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Is-the-implementation-of-lock%28LockModeType.READ%29-correct--tp2272546p2284440.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.