[jbosscache-commits] JBoss Cache SVN: r5561 - core/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/cache/interceptors.

[jbosscache-commits at lists.jboss.org]

Author: manik.surtani at jboss.com
Date: 2008-04-14 14:13:55 -0400 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 5561

Modified:
   core/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/cache/interceptors/PessimisticLockInterceptor.java
Log:
Updated

Modified: core/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/cache/interceptors/PessimisticLockInterceptor.java
===================================================================
--- core/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/cache/interceptors/PessimisticLockInterceptor.java	2008-04-14 17:08:26 UTC (rev 5560)
+++ core/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/cache/interceptors/PessimisticLockInterceptor.java	2008-04-14 18:13:55 UTC (rev 5561)
@@ -27,6 +27,14 @@
 import java.util.LinkedList;
 import java.util.List;
 
+/*
+* todo refactorings ideas
+*      - thre are many places in code that handles that coputes the lock owners: either GTX or Thread.local. The
+*      lockOwner can be abstractised  as a LockOwner that can be extended by CurrentThreadLock owner and
+       GlobalTransaction owner. This would make the code nicer.
+*/
+
+
 /**
  * An interceptor that handles locking. When a TX is associated, we register
  * for TX completion and unlock the locks acquired within the scope of the TX.
@@ -88,7 +96,8 @@
             lockManager.manageReverseRemove(ctx.getGlobalTransaction(), childNode, true, null);
             n = childNode;
          }
-      } else
+      }
+      else
       {
          lockManager.acquireLocksWithTimeout(ctx, command.getFqn(), NodeLock.LockType.WRITE, true, false, false, true, null, false);
       }
@@ -97,6 +106,18 @@
       return retVal;
    }
 
+   // TODO: This is unused.  I'm guessing that is a bug?!??  This does need to be checked.
+
+//   protected boolean skipMethodCall(InvocationContext ctx)
+//   {
+//      return (supressLocking(ctx) && !MethodDeclarations.isPutMethod(ctx.getMethodCall().getMethodId()));
+//   }
+
+//   private boolean supressLocking(InvocationContext ctx)
+//   {
+//      return ctx.getOptionOverrides() != null && ctx.getOptionOverrides().isSuppressLocking();
+//   }
+
    public Object handlePrepareCommand(InvocationContext ctx, PrepareCommand command) throws Throwable
    {
       // 2-phase commit prepares are no-ops here.
@@ -128,7 +149,8 @@
       if (entry == null)
       {
          log.error("entry for transaction " + command.getGlobalTransaction() + " not found (transaction has possibly already been rolled back)");
-      } else
+      }
+      else
       {
          for (Fqn fqn : entry.getRemovedNodes())
          {
@@ -302,10 +324,3 @@
       }
    }
 }
-
-/*
-* todo refactorings ideas
-*      - thre are many places in code that handles that coputes the lock owners: either GTX or Thread.local. The
-*      lockOwner can be abstractised  as a LockOwner that can be extended by CurrentThreadLock owner and
-       GlobalTransaction owner. This would make the code nicer.
-*/