gustav trede wrote:
On 18 August 2010 13:22, Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com <mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com>> wrote:gustav trede wrote: On 18 August 2010 12:10, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com> <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>>> wrote: Michael, java.net.HttpCookie uses static SimpleDateFormat which is not thread safe. I think the best solution here is to simply create local SimpleDateFormat as needed. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/6965924/webrev.00/webrev/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Echegar/6965924/webrev.00/webrev/> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Echegar/6965924/webrev.00/webrev/> Why not use a threadlocal dateformater ?. perhaps ... For certain cases Its also viable to exploit the fact that its enough to generate a new value once per second for HTTP timestamps. Even if its not "needed", it would imo be nice if the JDK code itself could somehow act as reference / good examples of how to THINK(design) and implement. I suspect you're looking at this from a server perspective. This code is involved with parsing of incoming cookies. So, the generation of timestamps isn't being done here.Yes i am quite server focused =), servers can act as http clients too, different kind of intermediate logic etc. Anyhow, my apologies for wasting your time with this not so important issue, my brain just pings on code it finds strange /.
We use ThreadLocal to store the formatter for the HttpServer implementation, com.sun.net.httpserver, see 6967684 "httpserver using a non thread-safe SimpleDateFormat" [1]. The threads creating the HTTP timestamps are part of an execurtorService and will need a timestamp per response. These threads will not be used for anything else, and are most probably going to handle many requests. I think adding a threadLocal makes sense for these.
For HttpCookie, it is client side and a thread may only ever handle a few cookies for its lifetime. I think adding the overhead of three formatters may just be wasteful since the thread may never do any more than a few HTTP requests.
Are you ok with this change? -Chris. [1] http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6967684
regards gustav trede
