<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 5/15/12 5:21 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8BC770CA-4686-4C57-9D92-0C430FD9DFA6@jboss.org"
type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On 15 May 2012, at 17:10, Galder Zamarreño wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">You have not yet given me a single
reason why we should put back something that's flawed. All
you've said is: i rely on X and I want it back.<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Well, the old scheme was broken and there are several good
reasons why we moved to a more consistent approach. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I agree Manik, the new locking scheme has been a major improvement,
it makes no sense to spend effort to re-base it on 5.2 ... it's only
that a certain point we misunderstood (or if you want, hoping) that
it was still available somewhere using some mysterious configuration
flag :-)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8BC770CA-4686-4C57-9D92-0C430FD9DFA6@jboss.org"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Diego, can't your work be modified to work with the new
schemes?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That's the plan. It can, and it will... the point is if we will make
it in time for our project's review (mid june)... but we like
challenges! ;-)<br>
</body>
</html>