Glenn
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
I was thinking about concurrent modification of the trace List
thread1: borrowObject -> removeAbandoned (synchronized on pool) -> trace.iterator()
thread2: returnObject -> (synchronize on trace) -> trace.remove
This triggers a ConcurrentModificationException, IMHO
I would synchronize on the pool itself like this: synchronized(this) { trace.remove(obj); }
Dirk
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
Shouldn't you synchronize on the pool itself instead of on the trace list in AbandonedObjectPool?
borrowObject and returnObject are synchronized on trace
invalidateObject and removeAbandoned are synchronized on the pool
The synchronization required for using the GenericObjectPool is done when
the respective super methods are called on the object pool. These syncrhonizations are only for managing abandoned connections, not
for the underlying pool. The synchronizations were moved inside the
methods to remove the need for a synchronization if removal of abandoned
pools is not being used.
You are right, the synchronization for invalidateObject could be moved inside the method like it was done for returnObject.
The entire method for removeAbandoned needs to be synchronized.
Regards,
Glenn
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
