This repository has been archived by the owner on May 7, 2020. It is now read-only.
concurrency issue on tag handling #5654
Comments
|
Valid point, indeed! |
sjsf
pushed a commit
to sjsf/smarthome
that referenced
this issue
May 30, 2018
fixes eclipse-archived#5654 Signed-off-by: Simon Kaufmann <[email protected]>
maggu2810
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 30, 2018
* Allow tag deletion of missing item Whenever a non-managed item was removed, the removal of its tags should still be possible without the need to hook into any of the item registries lifecycle methods. Metadata has its own lifecycle, so tags should do too. Also, this adapts the signature of ItemRegistry.removeTags(String) to return a boolean like all the other tag related methods do. * adapt ItemUIRegistryImpl * added locking to tag related methods fixes #5649 fixes #5654 Signed-off-by: Simon Kaufmann <[email protected]>
ermartens
pushed a commit
to ermartens/smarthome
that referenced
this issue
Jun 15, 2018
* Allow tag deletion of missing item Whenever a non-managed item was removed, the removal of its tags should still be possible without the need to hook into any of the item registries lifecycle methods. Metadata has its own lifecycle, so tags should do too. Also, this adapts the signature of ItemRegistry.removeTags(String) to return a boolean like all the other tag related methods do. * adapt ItemUIRegistryImpl * added locking to tag related methods fixes eclipse-archived#5649 fixes eclipse-archived#5654 Signed-off-by: Simon Kaufmann <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
On reading the changes of #5652 it seems that the whole implementation does not respect concurrency.
We miss synchronization blocks in all the tag handling methods.
If two clients manage the tags of the same item the behavior if not deterministic.
Assume you call remote tags with an item name and a collection of tags to remove.
If this method is called e.g. by different users of a Web UI at the same time the "get, modify, set" procedure could be interrupted and ...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: