Right, but that's just to no-op duplicate close() calls which makes sense
to me since there's no way to query the output stream to see if it's
closed. But that version wasn't trying to deal with (rightfully IMO given
this class isn't threadsafe) concurrent calls to close() from different
threads.
sent from my phone
On Jun 24, 2015 9:26 PM, "Brian Burkhalter" <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> To be picky about it, it is not exactly locking but a very similar pattern:
> 158 public void close() throws IOException {
> 159 if (closed)
> 160 return;
> 161 closed = true;
> On Jun 24, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, where was the double checked locking in FilterOutputStream? I see
> a plain "closed" boolean before.
> >
> > sent from my phone
> >
> > The intent here was to fix a specific problem of exception throwing in
> close(). Prior to this, re-closing the stream was “protected” by double
> checked locking. Extending coverage of synchronicity problems to the rest
> of the class could be addressed in the context of another issue, yet to be
> filed, should this be deemed desirable.
> >
> > On Jun 24, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vita...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I must say it's a bit odd seeing an atomic field in an otherwise
> non-threadsafe class. To be pedantic, what's to prevent close (being
> called on a different thread from one that allocated the filtered output
> stream) from seeing inconsistent out field values (assume the stream was
> published unsafely)? Readers/maintainers of this class may question why
> this sole bit is covered via an atomic but rest of class isn't.
>
>
