Github user bdumon commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/51#discussion_r19611104
--- Diff:
curator-recipes/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/recipes/cache/PathChildrenCache.java
---
@@ -382,6 +383,11 @@ public void close() throws IOException
connectionStateListener = null;
childrenWatcher = null;
dataWatcher = null;
+
+ synchronized (backgroundTaskMonitor) {
--- End diff --
An empty synchronized block is not like an empty if statement or such,
since "getting the lock" is a meaningful operation by itself. This being said,
I could rewrite it to use an java.util.concurrent Lock object, or maybe
something else?
At a high level, my change will make the close() method wait until a
potentially running background refresh operation has finished (and it also
assures that no new refresh can start after the close method has returned). I
guess this should be fine, though it could cause some delay on the close() in
case of very large caches. This could be avoided by extra is-closed checks in
the for-loop in processChildren(). I didn't consider this earlier, I can add it
to my patch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
