You where right. return of logger/log was nil.
Thank you very much.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 27.04.2011 um 00:33 schrieb Zlatko Josic:
>
> > Any idea why changes in the function below does'nt work (see first post
> on this topic)?
> >
> >
> > (def
Hi,
Am 27.04.2011 um 00:33 schrieb Zlatko Josic:
> Any idea why changes in the function below does'nt work (see first post on
> this topic)?
>
>
> (defn process-request
> [offer args]
> (logger/log "process called")
> (let [offer-value (Double/parseDouble (:offer offer))
>
Any idea why changes in the function below does'nt work (see first post on
this topic)?
(defn process-request
[offer args]
(logger/log "process called")
(let [offer-value (Double/parseDouble (:offer offer))
out-queue (:out-queue args)
unique-offers (:unique-offers args)
Yes, you're right, I'm wrong. :)
The derefs must be in the dosync block. (which I somehow assumed, oh well)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Daniel Werner <
daniel.d.wer...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 10:52 pm, Jonathan Fischer Friberg
> wrote:
> > No, that isn't possible.http://clojure
On Apr 26, 10:52 pm, Jonathan Fischer Friberg
wrote:
> No, that isn't possible.http://clojure.org/refs
I disagree: In the example given, dereferencing happens outside the
dosync block, thus outside of any transaction, so a race where map1
and map2 change midway through the #'and expression is the
Hi,
Am 26.04.2011 um 22:33 schrieb Zlatko Josic:
> Is this scenario posible :
>
> (def test-map (ref {}))
>
> (def test-map2 (ref {}))
>
> (defn process
> [map1 map2]
> (cond
> (and (empty? @map1) (empty? @map2))
> (dosync
>((alter map1 assoc key1 value1)
> (alter map2 assoc key2 v
No, that isn't possible.
http://clojure.org/refs
Inside a transaction (a dosync call), values updated in another transaction
wont be seen. This means that the first transaction wont see the change
until it commits, at that moment it realizes that the ref that were altered
was changed outside of th
Is this scenario posible :
(def test-map (ref {}))
(def test-map2 (ref {}))
(defn process
[map1 map2]
(cond
(and (empty? @map1) (empty? @map2))
(dosync
((alter map1 assoc key1 value1)
(alter map2 assoc key2 value2)
.
Suppose the process method is called from many threads. Is
The important part were that the "dosync" call is isolated. The condition
doesn't really matter.
By the way: wouldn't it be simpler to create a new map instead of altering
unique-offers/all-offers?
(this is also more idiomatic)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Zlatko Josic wrote:
> I have given
I have given only part of function. I have condition like this :
(cond
(and (empty? @unique-offers) (empty? @all-offers))
I change in dosync both unique-offers and all-offers. If I use your
suggestion
(empty? @unique-offers) (dosync ... alter ...)
Can I get in situation where unique-offers i
On a closer look:
((logger/log "map" @unique-offers)
(alter unique-offers assoc offer-value streams))
should probably be
(do (logger/log "map" @unique-offers)
(alter unique-offers assoc offer-value streams))
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jonathan Fischer Friberg <
ody
I don't know.
However, given the situation I think
(cond
(empty? @unique-offers) (dosync ... alter ...)
:else (logger/log "error"))
is better, since the change is more isolated.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Zlatko Josic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use cond in dosync but it doesn't work. Here is
Hi,
I use cond in dosync but it doesn't work. Here is a function code:
(defn process-request
[offer args]
(logger/log "process called")
(let [offer-value (Double/parseDouble (:offer offer))
out-queue (:out-queue args)
unique-offers (:unique-offers args)
all-of
13 matches
Mail list logo
