Hi Girish, The UsmUserTable (USMUserTable does not exists either) addUser and removeAllUsers methods are both synchronised. Thus, where exactly do you see a concurrency issue?
Best regards, Frank > On 11. Mar 2019, at 14:32, Girish Venkatasubramanian <giris...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Frank. > Yes, I had the incorrect class name. Thanks for pointing that out. > > The class I was asking about was USMUserTable. Same questions however. > > Thanks > Girish > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019, 8:59 AM Frank Fock <f...@agentpp.com > <mailto:f...@agentpp.com>> wrote: > Hello Girish, > > A class USMTable does not exists in SNMP4J. Do you meant another class or is > this class from a third party? > > Best regards, > Frank > > > On 8. Mar 2019, at 16:57, Girish Venkatasubramanian <giris...@gmail.com > > <mailto:giris...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hello > > I was wondering if the USMTable is thread safe. > > > > I see that the USMTable uses a TreeMap which itself is not synchronized > > (say, unlike a concurrent hash map). > > > > Even though the functions that access it are synchronized it would not > > prevent a scenario where one thread is calling removeAllUsers() and another > > thread is invoking addUser() - yes ? Is there some synchronization > > mechanism that I am missing ? > > > > Would appreciate your response. > > Thanks > > Girish > > _______________________________________________ > > SNMP4J mailing list > > SNMP4J@agentpp.org <mailto:SNMP4J@agentpp.org> > > https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j > > <https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j> > _______________________________________________ SNMP4J mailing list SNMP4J@agentpp.org https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
