Indeed we are interested in efficient ways to implement a lock like this. I think we have enough working information for now. Thanks a lot.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Paul Ferraro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.ferraro@redhat.com">paul.ferraro@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 08:57 -0600, Brian Stansberry wrote:<br>
> On 12/22/10 8:45 AM, Paul Ferraro wrote:<br>
> > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:18 +0200, Vladimir Ralev wrote:<br>
> >> 3. Do you acquire any cluster locks on the data in the cache during<br>
> >> the request processing thread? (like cluster-wide thread<br>
> >> synchronization)<br>
> ><br>
> > No.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Did the session ownership stuff end up not happening?<br>
<br>
</div>No - it's there, for both web sessions and stateful session beans.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Although not a<br>
> cluster-wide lock on the data in the cache, session ownership represents<br>
> a cluster-wide lock on the logical session, done at the web/sfsb<br>
> container level.<br>
<br>
</div>Right, but I don't think this is what the questioner was concerned about<br>
(hence why I didn't mention it).<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
jboss-cluster-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:jboss-cluster-dev@lists.jboss.org">jboss-cluster-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-cluster-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-cluster-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>