You may be right, although neither volatile nor synchronized are appealing here.
Please raise an issue on GitHub
Stephen
On 12 July 2013 10:19, Lin Wang <superno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The javadoc of ISODateTimeFormat class says it's thread-safe and immutable.
> The static fields are lazily initialized. However it seems it's not done in
> a thread-safe manner.
>
> For example, dt is lazily initialized in
> public static DateTimeFormatter dateTime() {
> if (dt == null) {
> dt = new DateTimeFormatterBuilder()
> .append(date())
> .append(tTime())
> .toFormatter();
> }
> return dt;
> }
>
> When there are two threads both inside this method, is it possible that one
> thread sees an unsafely published non-null dt value due to cache
> incoherence?
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Joda-interest mailing list
> Joda-interest@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Joda-interest mailing list
Joda-interest@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/joda-interest
