--------------Original Comment History----------------------------
Comment from = cf126330 on 2013-03-15 03:28:18 +0000
Should have some javadoc in JobOperator to cover concurrency and thread-safety aspect.
For example, is it supported if multiple client threads access the same JobOperator instance, starting/stopping/restarting the same or different job?
Comment from = ScottKurz on 2013-03-15 17:50:32 +0000
For what it's worth we're not doing a whole lot in the RI.. even in the Glassfish environment where we've introduced a purge.
The burden of consistency and synchronization is on the end user / batch admin... though we took another pass fixing our RI tables and at least have some DB-level consistency.
We won't have time to code anything else here.. so probably you'll have to use loose language (i.e. up to implementation) here.
Comment from = cvignola on 2013-03-16 21:23:55 +0000
I need to think this one over a little more.
Comment from = ScottKurz on 2014-02-13 13:12:33 +0000
Not committing to address in future, just listing as candidates and pointing out they're excluded from current Maintenance Rel.
Originally opened as bug 4798 by cf126330
--------------Original Comment History---------------------------- Comment from = cf126330 on 2013-03-15 03:28:18 +0000
Should have some javadoc in JobOperator to cover concurrency and thread-safety aspect.
For example, is it supported if multiple client threads access the same JobOperator instance, starting/stopping/restarting the same or different job?
Comment from = ScottKurz on 2013-03-15 17:50:32 +0000
For what it's worth we're not doing a whole lot in the RI.. even in the Glassfish environment where we've introduced a purge.
The burden of consistency and synchronization is on the end user / batch admin... though we took another pass fixing our RI tables and at least have some DB-level consistency.
We won't have time to code anything else here.. so probably you'll have to use loose language (i.e. up to implementation) here.
Comment from = cvignola on 2013-03-16 21:23:55 +0000
I need to think this one over a little more.
Comment from = ScottKurz on 2014-02-13 13:12:33 +0000
Not committing to address in future, just listing as candidates and pointing out they're excluded from current Maintenance Rel.