Hi, On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have the vague guts feeling, that this is not a good idea because it > creates too big synchronized blocks.
Why would that be a problem? By definition we should not be having more than one concurrent thread accessing such blocks. > Therefore I would think, that this is probably not a good idea to do. It > would probably be better to enhance JavaDoc and tell "not thread-safe" > in big fat red letters. The background to this issue is a ConcurrentModificationException that Angela spotted on the namespace map in AbstractSession. That map is only ever accessed and modified by public Session methods, so the only way for that exception to occur is if some client is already breaking the thread-safety contract of Session. That's clearly a bug in the client code, but IMHO relying on the correctness of client code is too fragile. BR, Jukka Zitting
