DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-09 05:01 ------- The last comment fails to explain why this bug report is invalid. In fact, this *is* a valid bug report. With the supplied code it is perfectly possible for the "instance" field to become visible to another thread before the "maxPoolSize" field in the pool implementation does. Since these other threads then no longer synchronize on the lock, this internal state of the pool implementation may never become visible to these threads. This could cause getMaxSize() to always return 0 in these threads. As it stands this class is not thread safe, and the only way to properly use it accross multiple threads is through extra synchronization by those who use the class. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
