[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1344?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jukka Zitting updated JCR-1344:
-------------------------------
Component/s: jackrabbit-spi-commons
Fix Version/s: 1.5
Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug)
It's not really harmful as there's no state in NameFactoryImpl, but I agree
that the if statement there is not needed. Better to just initialize the
FACTORY constant where it's declared.
> Unsynchronized NameFactoryImpl initialization
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-1344
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1344
> Project: Jackrabbit
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jackrabbit-spi-commons
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Assignee: Thomas Mueller
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.5
>
>
> org.apache.jackrabbit.spi.commons.name.NameFactoryImpl uses an unsafe pattern
> when initializing:
> private static NameFactory FACTORY;
> private NameFactoryImpl() {};
> public static NameFactory getInstance() {
> if (FACTORY == null) {
> FACTORY = new NameFactoryImpl();
> }
> return FACTORY;
> }
> This is bad in a multi-threaded environment (see
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-dcl.html for details).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
