Just viewed DateTool in CVS. Yes, "format" also has
thread problem and need fix. But, has "parse" been
fixed? I didn't see any change about it in v1.7.
--- Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked in a fix for the "format" side
> (setting the "Last-Modified"
> header). This one is much harder to hit, but that
> doesn't mean that you
> can't. The "parse" side (getting the
> "If-Modified-Since" header) has been
> fixed in the nightly for quite some time now.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh J. L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Tomcat Developers List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:12 PM
> Subject: Bug in DateTool in tomcat connector util?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found a bug (?) when i was testing tomcat3.3
> using
> > MS web stress tool. I set up large amount of
> > concurrent requests for static files, each with
> header
> > If-Modified-Since which is newer than actual
> > last-modified-time of those requested files. I
> should
> > have got 304 response for ALL requests in this
> case,
> > however, i got many 304, a few 200, and even
> > NumberFormatException occasionally. This didn't
> happen
> > if i tested using only one client thread. I looked
> > into java.text.SimpleDateFormat and suspected it
> was
> > possibly a synchronization problem. Then I added
> > synchronization control to DateTool.parse(String,
> > DateFormat[]) as below and the problem was solved:
> >
> > synchronized(format[i]) {
> > date = format[i].parse(dateString);
> > }
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
