v9 Release Notes

[MrD]

Wow! So much to consume!

Codebase from EMBEDDED (HD300) merged with main SageTV codebase (NOTE: This will no longer run on the HD300 because it’s not Java 1.5 source rather than Java 1.4)

I assume this is pulling the embedded code into a single codebase for possible support of other embedded platforms versus trying to do anything with the HD300. Correct?

Read/write locking support in the database (previously, it only had generic rw locks...now their are explicit locks for read and write on each table)

Is the database at risk of deadlock from legacy code that is not aware of the fine grained locks?

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by MrD

I assume this is pulling the embedded code into a single codebase for possible support of other embedded platforms versus trying to do anything with the HD300. Correct?

That's what i gathered from it.

[Narflex]

Originally Posted by MrD

Wow! So much to consume!



I assume this is pulling the embedded code into a single codebase for possible support of other embedded platforms versus trying to do anything with the HD300. Correct?



Is the database at risk of deadlock from legacy code that is not aware of the fine grained locks?

For the HD300 code its for if you want to do another platform...in this form it is not compatible with the JVM used on the HD300.

And the DB locking changes should have zero affect on code external to the SageTV core because it never had access to stuff outside of the locking mechanisms.

[MrD]

And the DB locking changes should have zero affect on code external to the SageTV core because it never had access to stuff outside of the locking mechanisms.

Fair enough makes sense.

EDIT:

I do have a question about the locks in general. It seems the locks are protecting access to changes to the Index objects. Why is it that Index.add, Index.remove, Index.update do not acquire the write locks.

Nevermind, I see it ... it's a bit dangerous though if other/new code calls one of those methods without first obtaining a lock.

[Narflex]

Originally Posted by MrD

Nevermind, I see it ... it's a bit dangerous though if other/new code calls one of those methods without first obtaining a lock.

I'd reject any code changes that call those without obtaining locks. They don't do the locking themselves because nearly always the locks need to be held for a longer period of time than that.

[skiingwiz]

I didn't see it in the release notes, but my testing shows that https downloads now work for plugins. (There goes my first contribution )

[Narflex]

Originally Posted by skiingwiz

I didn't see it in the release notes, but my testing shows that https downloads now work for plugins. (There goes my first contribution )

Yeah, that was something I did a one line change for when it was brought up to me a few months back.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by Narflex

Yeah, that was something I did a one line change for when it was brought up to me a few months back.

Thank you for that one line change