Just to be clear, this fix is on Pax JDBC, but the same fix should be applied to Pax JMS. Synchronized is IMHO better and consistent more than using a ConcurrentHashMap.
Regards JB On 01/10/2018 11:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > By the way, don't you think this commit: > > https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.jdbc/commit/6bfeccea774195316d4d2382b5235a7c4d1501e0 > > already fix the issue ? > > I think the synchronized on methods are enough, so I think your PR is > useless with this commit. > > Regards > JB > > On 01/10/2018 08:51, Miroslav Beranič wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was getting ( sometimes ) ConcurrentModificationException when using >> PAX JMS ( 1.0.2 ). It turned out to be synchronization fail in >> ConnectionFactoryConfigManager. I've made a fix by replace HashMap with >> ConcurrentHashMap ( and removed synchronized methods ). >> >> I write here, as I think Karaf is main user base of the PAX JMS library. >> >> Any comment is welcome. Fix is located at: >> >> https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.jms/pull/15 >> >> P.S: I've also updated the dependencies ( in my local branch, not part >> of the pull request ) - something to have in mind when/if doing local >> build ( working with Karaf 4.2.2 ). >> >> Kind Regards, >> Miroslav >> >> >> >> -- >> Miroslav Beranič >> MIBESIS >> +386(0)40/814-843 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://www.mibesis.si > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
