Le 01/07/15 09:58, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Thanks Emmanuel for taking care of this and the comprehensive understanding! > I thought you're all right. > > As I said before, I'm totally OK to redesign and re-implement the cache > support since the original is a quick work and too simple. I thought both > yours or Kiran's are good to me. > > Yes in the existing codes, the LinkedHashMap should be protected since there > may be many querying that need to update the cache. It's my fault not seeing > this. Note most of the methods don't need synchronized because the interface > contains two parts of APIs, one is for KDC which is mainly for querying, the > other is for kadmin that's to add/update/delete entries. No concurrent > threads in kadmin would be used I guess.
you should protect the cache no matter what, even the query part. What would happen if you are reading the cache while another thread is reading it ? > > Yes again we need the Javadocs. Recently I'm revisiting some of the codes and > refined quite much. I'm going to revisit them again to add the missing > Javadocs particularly for important APIs. To avoid conflict with Kiran's > effort I'm hesitating on the Identity backend part. The best is to be sure any of the committers take care of it *before* committing. I know it's a tedious task, but less than doing so afterward...
