I think the basic RW lock is very much needed. As far as additional features, we should wait for community feedback in my view.
Dmitriy > On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Vlad! > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > I looked through concurrency-interest discussion, and I don't think we > should do this in Ignite. At least now. I am not sure if this will give any > advantage since only one thread can acquire UPDATE lock at the same time. > Btw, was there any benchmark published comparing UpdateLock vs RWLock > implementations? > > I think that in many cases read then update scenarios can be handled with > some kind of volatile or atomic read and then acquiring the ordinary lock > or by CAS operation. For the rest of cases we already have RWLock. > > And one more point - nobody asked for it. So, I ask - Does anyone need it > in Ignite? > > Thanks! > > --Yakov > > 2016-07-18 22:55 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> cross-posting from JIRA: >> I recently came across this post: >> http://codereview.stackexchange.com/a/31231 >> >> Do you think ReadWriteUpdateLock is something we can put to good use here >> in Ignite? >> >> This kind of lock should be more efficient for read-before-write patterns. >> >> Best regards, >> Vladisav >>
