JavaHL Thread Safety?

[Conor MacNeill <co...@cenqua.com>]

Mark Phippard wrote:

> 
> I do not think it is at all unreasonable for a Java library to declare its 
> thread-safety.  I have seen several that flat-out say they are not thread 
> safe.  I do not see the problem with JavaHL providing a thread-safe and 
> non thread-safe version of the interface.  It is hardly a burden to change 
> your code from:
> 
> SVNClientInterface client = new SVNClient();
> 
> to
> 
> SVNClientInterface client = new SVNClientSynchronized();
> 
> If you need thread safety.
> 

I guess I'd like to get a clarification here. As currently implemented
the SVNClientSynchronized implementation means there can only be a
single active SVNClient in the whole JVM. It's way more than "thread
safety".

Currently SVNClient says it is not "thread safe" and that's fine, but to
me that means I can only use one thread in a particular instance. It
does not suggest to me that I can really only use one instance at a time
in the whole VM.

A single active instance per VM seems a bit limiting to me. Could
someone please clarify that this is indeed the case.

Cheers
Conor



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org