Pasi Salminen created MYFACES-3705:
--------------------------------------

             Summary: Concurrency "feature" in FaceletCacheImpl
                 Key: MYFACES-3705
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3705
             Project: MyFaces Core
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: General
    Affects Versions: 2.1.0
         Environment: All
            Reporter: Pasi Salminen
            Priority: Trivial


I'm implementing my own FaceletCache which is decorating 
org.apache.myfaces.view.facelets.impl.FaceletCacheImpl by adding my own caching 
policy. When I was studying the code I'm decorating, I noticed that scrictly 
speaking it was not behaving. The problem lies in this code snippet (and the 
same for metadata facelets):

            if (_refreshPeriod != NO_CACHE_DELAY)
            {
                Map<String, DefaultFacelet> newLoc = new HashMap<String, 
DefaultFacelet>(_facelets);
                newLoc.put(key, f);
                _facelets = newLoc;
            }

First of all, multiple concurrent modifications of _facelets map may cause lost 
updates. Think what happens when thread one copies the hashmap, updates local 
copy but before it sets the reference, thread b does the same. One update is 
now lost. In reality, the number of concurrent threads and number of lost 
updates may be much larger. The second thing is that the new reference set to 
_facelets is not quaranteed to be visible to other threads due to missing 
synchronization. To prove my concerns, I created a small test bench which 
proved my doubts and was able to show both lost updates and visibility problem. 
When I modified the map to be ConcurrentHashMap and just used put-method all 
problems vanished. So instead of

                Map<String, DefaultFacelet> newLoc = new HashMap<String, 
DefaultFacelet>(_facelets);
                newLoc.put(key, f);
                _facelets = newLoc;

I used

                _facelets.put( key,f );

I know it may not be a problem, possibly just causing multiple loads of same 
resource, but still I don't feel comfortable with the code behaving 
concurrency-wise incorrectly.

BR, Paci


--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to