Am 20.09.2012 22:38, schrieb Honton, Charles:
This obviously makes the concurrency problem easier :)
Apart from this case, it would be good to agree on exactly what it
means for [configuration] to be threadsafe. Is it basically the
semantics of ConcurrentHashmap? Or are there sequencing / e
>>>
>>> This obviously makes the concurrency problem easier :)
>>>
>>> Apart from this case, it would be good to agree on exactly what it
>>> means for [configuration] to be threadsafe. Is it basically the
>>> semantics of ConcurrentHashmap? Or are there sequencing / event
>>> serialization cons
On 9/19/12 1:19 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Am 18.09.2012 20:09, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> On 9/17/12 12:39 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>>> Hi Jörg,
>>>
>>> many thanks for your input!
>>>
>>> Am 17.09.2012 10:01, schrieb Jörg Schaible:
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
>
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> many thanks for your input!
>
> Am 17.09.2012 10:01, schrieb Jörg Schaible:
[snip]
>> However, what also bugs me in the meantime is the current hard relation
>> between the configuration object and its format. Why should I care at all
>> in what format the co
Hi Phil,
Am 18.09.2012 20:09, schrieb Phil Steitz:
On 9/17/12 12:39 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi Jörg,
many thanks for your input!
Am 17.09.2012 10:01, schrieb Jörg Schaible:
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
one limitation of the 1.x versions of [configuration] is the
incomplete
support
On 9/17/12 12:39 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> many thanks for your input!
>
> Am 17.09.2012 10:01, schrieb Jörg Schaible:
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> one limitation of the 1.x versions of [configuration] is the
>>> incomplete
>>> support for concurrent acces
Hi Jörg,
many thanks for your input!
Am 17.09.2012 10:01, schrieb Jörg Schaible:
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
one limitation of the 1.x versions of [configuration] is the incomplete
support for concurrent access to Configuration objects. In version 2.0
we should try to improve this.
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one limitation of the 1.x versions of [configuration] is the incomplete
> support for concurrent access to Configuration objects. In version 2.0
> we should try to improve this.
>
> I have some ideas about this topic - not fully thought out - and would
>
Hi,
one limitation of the 1.x versions of [configuration] is the incomplete
support for concurrent access to Configuration objects. In version 2.0
we should try to improve this.
I have some ideas about this topic - not fully thought out - and would
like to start a discussion. Here they are (
