As per Fortyfy analysis report - "Double-checked locking is an incorrect idiom
that does not achieve the intended effect"
F ollowing code is written to guarantee that only one Fitzer() object is ever
allocated, but does not want to pay the cost of synchronization every time this
code is called. This idiom is known as double-checked locking.
if (fitz == null) {
synchronized (this) {
if (fitz == null) {
fitz = new Fitzer();
}
}
}
return fitz;
Unfortunately, it does not work, and multiple Fitzer() objects can be
allocated. Therefore above code pattern is not recommended by Fortify.
Hence, for above scenario- Following is Recommendation by same: -
synchronized (this) {
if (fitz == null) {
fitz = new Fitzer();
}
}
return fitz;
As it is already known that in terms of performance, synchronized block is
expensive. As OFBiz code contains many references where Double checked locking
existed. And I would go with as is code rather to go with Fortify
recommendation.
Still looking for community to share the opinion. Your comments would be highly
appreciable.
Thanks in advance,
--
Regards
Sumit Pandit
Tata Consultancy Services
Cell:- 917503046188
____________________________________________
=====-----=====-----=====
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
review, distribution, printing or copying of the
information contained in this e-mail message
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error,
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
immediately and permanently delete the message
and any attachments. Thank you
