On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 14:32 -0400, Sandy McArthur wrote: > On 10/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > are there any pool developers out there with time to pick this up? > > > > otherwise, we could probably do with a volunteer to go through and > > analyse these issues. anyone fancy taking a crack at this? > > I'm not a pool dev but I'll make some time to implement fixes for the > problems Mayur Naik found and submit patches.
cool (in case you don't know the drill you might find some useful stuff in http://www.apache.org/dev/, http://jakarta.apache.org/site/getinvolved.html and http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/patches.html. please create a bugzilla for the patchs) unless some one beats me to it, once the patch is available i'll add myself to the dev list and review (as time permits). > While I'm at it would it be desirable to transition to the privately > head lock idiom to defend against intentionally malicious code? eg to > defend against: > > synchronized (aPool) { > Thread.sleep(Integer.Max_Value); > } > > by making anything that synchronized on this synchronize on a private field. i'm not too bothered about (that kind of) malicious code: there are too many ways the user of a library could subvert it. it might (however) stop a user doing something equivalent through carelessness or naivity. so probably worth doing. would need to add a note to the documentation since this would change the semantics. opinions? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
