Henri,
That was an unpleasant surprise.
So what would be the general suggested program pattern to use the API
if one wants to be thread safe?
Is it 1:
MyStringCodec {
String encode(String in) {
return new BCodec().encode(in);
}
}
or 2:
MyStringCodec {
BCodec delegate = new BCodec();
String encode(String in) {
return delegate.encode(in);
}
}
Option 2 apparently won't work in a multi-thread scenario if BCodec is
thread unsafe. But option 1 really creates A LOT of BCodec objects in
memory....
-Q
On 10/5/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/29/07, Qingtian Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I apologize for this question as it must have been asked a million
> > times: I was unable to search the mailing list archive for this.
> >
> > Are all the "encode/decode" methods in commons-codec intended to be thread
> > safe?
> >
> > I peeked into the source code for a couple of those methods. They both
> > seem to be thread safe. But I'd rather ask here to make sure that's
> > the general intention when the code is written.
>
> I think you'll find it varies. The various algorithms come from
> different sources, and though a common interface was put on them all,
> I doubt that time was spent to make sure they were all threadsafe.
>
> Looking at the objects, I see a few with private attributes that are
> set at more than just construction time - so very likely that one or
> another is thread unsafe.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
