Win a copy of Functional Reactive Programming this week in the Other Languages forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Locking

 
Anton Golovin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 476
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's what I came up with in respect to locking.

[ Please see this thread for a more complete locking scheme that I finally settled on.]

(By the way, whenever I wrote HashSet, I meant HashMap.)

a) Synchronize the HashSet. (threads may wait on that.)
b) Check for record being locked in it. If yes, wait() (lock on HashSet
released.)
c) When the record is unlocked, lock it again, this time by different Data object using the calling thread (i.e. client) lockCookie value. When checking, Data object acquires lock on HashSet automatically. Release lock on HashSet.
d) Modify the database file. Here I must guarantee that a record is unlocked only after database file is modified.
e) Synchronize the HashSet. Unlock the record I locked. Release the lock on the HashSet.

So in order to accomplish database access safely, three locks are in play:

lock 1 is the lock on the Data object.
lock 2 is the lock on the HashSet.
lock 3 is the lock put in the HashSet. This lock is purely logical: no lock is granted in the sense the synchronized keyword grants it. But this lock is accomplished by putting a key/value pair in the HashSet (record number or nubmer of bytes offset to the record, and lockCookie as the value) so that other threads, checking upon the presence of this record number, would abstain from modifying the record in the database.

That's basically what I came up with in regard to locking.

Does it look like it could work?
[ July 30, 2004: Message edited by: Anton Golovin ]
 
Andrew Monkhouse
author and jackaroo
Marshal Commander
Pie
Posts: 11944
212
C++ Firefox Browser IntelliJ IDE Java Mac Oracle
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Anton,

c) When the record is unlocked, lock it again, this time by different Data object using the calling thread (i.e. client) lockCookie value.


I have not understood where your lockCookie is coming from - is this something you are generating based on the thread, or something that is being generated client side, or something else?

d) Modify the database file. Here I must guarantee that a record is unlocked only after database file is modified.


I would have thought that the only thing you must guarantee is that a record must be locked when you attempt to modify it. Why are you forcing some modification to occur after locking?

Regards, Andrew
 
Anton Golovin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 476
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The lockCookie variable will be generated to uniquely identify each client. How to generate it, I have not thought yet. I think in the DataImpl class, I will make a method to create a cookie and return it to the client for the client to use. I will keep a list of clients in the DataImpl static Set structure, as well as the state of any numbering scheme I will be using.

The problem I am thinking about, though, is to make sure that only one of the many Data objects can access the database file. It would be simple with just one Data object, but the delay for the client would be greater. My specifications say I may assume that I would not need to lock the database file itself, but short of locking the file itself, I do not see how I can assure safe reading and writing on the file.
 
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic