synchronization

Currently outlook takes all list data and synchronises it with outlook. Is it possible and how to synchronise only items in a specific view? I`m only interested in my items in the list. Unfortunately this is not possible out-of-the-box. When connecting a list to Outlook it occurs at the list level, not at the view level. There may be a product you can purchase that will do this. I've had a quick look around for you without success but hopefully someone else can help. I don't think you can do exactly what you are asking. You could use the Content Query or Search Core Results Web Parts to get a

Here's the thing: I have two applications, written in C++ and running on two machines with different OS (one Linux and one Windows). One of this process is in charge of updating an XML file on a NAS (Network Attached Storage) while the other one reads this file. Is it possible to synchronize these two processes in order to avoid reading of the file at the same time it's being modified? You could create a lock file on the server that is created before you do a write, wait then write and delete on completion., Have the read process check for the token before reading the file. Edit : To address

How does JVM make sure threads acquire a lock after entering synchronized method of an object? Broad question: How does the JVM make sure...? The "VM" in "JVM" stands for "virtual machine." Your code doesn't do anything by itself. When we say, "your code runs", what we really mean is, the JVM executes your instructions. And it does so in accordance with the rules that are laid out in the JVM specification. One of the rules says that a JVM must never execute a synchronized block for two different threads on the same object at the same time. But there are many layers to the onion: A typeical JVM

My question is about synchronizedList method Collections Class. Javadocs say: It is imperative that the user manually synchronize on the returned list when iterating over it: List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList()); ... synchronized(list) { Iterator i = list.iterator(); // Must be in synchronized block while (i.hasNext()) foo(i.next()); } Though manually synchroniziation is not required for other methods. I looked into the source code of Collections class and found shyncronization has already been taken care for all methods like add public boolean add(E e) { synchronized(list

I have a stored procedure in mysql thats to perform a task that needs to be synchronized such that if two application calls the stored procedure, only one can access a section of code to perform the task, keeping the other one to get blocked until the first one finishes the task. DELIMITER $$ CREATE PROCEDURE SP_GEN_ID(IN NAME VARCHAR(20)) BEGIN DECLARE maxLen int default 0; START TRANSACTION; #the section of code that needs to be synchronized COMMIT END; $$ DELIMITER ; So, if two applications call the stored procedure simultaneously, the task has to be synchronized. a. But Start TRANSACTION

I have a Java Thread which exposes a property which other threads want to access: class MyThread extends Thread { private Foo foo; ... Foo getFoo() { return foo; } ... public void run() { ... foo = makeTheFoo(); ... } } The problem is that it takes some short time from the time this runs until foo is available. Callers may call getFoo() before this and get a null . I'd rather they simply block, wait, and get the value once initialization has occurred. ( foo is never changed afterwards.) It will be a matter of milliseconds until it's ready, so I'm comfortable with this approach. Now, I can make