[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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=36541.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-07 21:29 ---
After we finish clarifying who's is bigger (and mine is best case average), we
could return to the bug.
1. The bug isn't invalid, so I reopen it. You can set it to WONTFIX, but not to
INVALID.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Synchronizing the writes will also fix problems, since I think the
underlying structure of the hashmap went bad due to a concurrency of
reads. Try it before whining. Thanks.
Just a quick clarification. Did you mean to write ...Synchronizing
the *reads* will also fix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not even sure if I've been bitten by this either, but I have seen on the
list numerous people speaking of running out of Tomcat threads and setting their
connections to the max. If this issue were causing problems they might be
having it and not even realize it.
Mark Thomas wrote:
Just a quick clarification. Did you mean to write ...Synchronizing the
*reads* will also fix problems...?
If concurrent reads is the problem, then don't the reads need to be
synchronised? I thought from one of your earlier posts that the writes
were already synchronised.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Just a quick clarification. Did you mean to write ...Synchronizing
the *reads* will also fix problems...?
If concurrent reads is the problem, then don't the reads need to be
synchronised? I thought from one of your earlier posts that the writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-08 01:08 ---
I wonder if the new java.util.concurrent classes could be used instead
of simple HashMap?
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.html
but that would
Mark Thomas wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Indeed. But do we need to sync the reads in 5.5.x as well or is it
enough just to do the writes? I am confused as you said concurrent reads
were the issue but syncing the writes would fix it.
No, concurrent reads are not the issue. The problem is
