Batch Executor is thread safe or not

[rahulsrivastava71]

Dear Eugene,
I have one query related to Batch executor that , is your batch executor thread safe or not ,
as we have to use synchronised block on that executor or not.

[valchkou]

Not sure how you intend to use it.
correct use sample:

1. mappingSession is threadsafe and you can reuse it in multiple threads

// new batch statement created each time
mappingSession.withBatch()
            .save(obj1)
            .delete(obj2)
            .execute();

2. you can reuse batch object as soon as you don't modify it, don't add statements

// initialize batch  
BatchExecutor batch = mappingSession
    .withBatch()
    .save(obj1)
    .(obj2);        

// execute it from multiple threads
batch.execute();    

[rahulsrivastava71]

suppose if my mappingSession is singleton and i am trying to access two
quries from two different locations using the same session (singleton
object) one is simple query and other is batch then i require synchronised
block on executor or mappingSession ,
But you are saying that mappingSession itself is thread safe.
So what is the exact way to do it.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Eugene [email protected] wrote:

Not sure how you intend to use it.
correct use sample:

1. mappingSession is threadsafe and you can reuse it in multiple threads

// new batch statement created each time
mappingSession.withBatch()
.save(obj1)
.delete(obj2)
.execute();

1. you can reuse batch object as soon as you don't modify it, don't add
   statements

// initialize batch BatchExecutor batch = mappingSession
.withBatch()
.save(obj1)
.(obj2);
// execute it from multiple threads
batch.execute();

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#68 (comment)
.

[valchkou]

you can use same mappingSession from multiple threads, no need to synchronize it.

[rahulsrivastava71]

and if i am modifieying the batch then also i dont need to sysnchronise it.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Eugene [email protected] wrote:

you can use same mappingSession from multiple threads, no need to
synchronize it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#68 (comment)
.