Re: [PR] Changed simple synchronization to ReentrantReadWriteLock [tomcat]
n828cl commented on PR #712: URL: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/712#issuecomment-2208075153 Tomcat 8.5 reached end-of-life in March, so there won't be any more updates. You should update to a supported level at your earliest convenience. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [PR] Changed simple synchronization to ReentrantReadWriteLock [tomcat]
wapkch commented on PR #712: URL: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/712#issuecomment-2207881666 @ChristopherSchultz Could this fix be ported to 8.5.x? Cause the latest 8.5.100 has the same problem. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [PR] Changed simple synchronization to ReentrantReadWriteLock [tomcat]
ChristopherSchultz commented on PR #712: URL: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/712#issuecomment-2032266991 Thank you for this PR, though I was already working on a patch and the unit tests pass, so I'm going to commit my patch instead of yours. I will credit you for the idea in the changelog, however. I like my patch better than yours primarily because you are placing the call to `lock.lock()` within the `try` block, and it should be placed before the `try` block instead. Also, I use two separate `Lock` objects instead of calling `ReentrantReadWriteLock.writeLock()` or `.readLock()` each time, which makes it easier to read the code to see that the correct lock is being used. I _could_ just add commits to your PR to make it work, but the work is already done on my end so I'm gonna commit mine. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [PR] Changed simple synchronization to ReentrantReadWriteLock [tomcat]
ChristopherSchultz closed pull request #712: Changed simple synchronization to ReentrantReadWriteLock URL: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/712 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
