Thanks Adrian, I'll give that a go -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Crum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ConcurrentModificationException ???? Linux
You might have better luck replacing the entire widget component. -Adrian On 5/26/2011 12:47 AM, SkipDever wrote: > I am wondering if I can just move all the > /framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/form*.java from 10.04 into my build > and have some chance of it building? Fortunately, I have not modified any > of this code. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Crum [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ConcurrentModificationException ???? Linux > > > Skip, > > The widget models are kept in a memory cache and the model instances are > shared among threads. There were a number of thread-safe issues in the > 9.x widget models. Some have been fixed, others have Jira issues and > still need to be fixed. It is not uncommon for thread-safe bugs to > appear sporadically - since the bug is timing-dependent. If you have a > specific revision number, I might be able to suggest a fix. > > -Adrian > > On 5/25/2011 6:19 PM, SkipDever wrote: >> I am frequently getting a java.util.ConcurrentModificationException from: >> >> java.util.LinkedList$ListItr.next() >> org.ofbiz.widget.form.ModelForm.renderHeaderRow(ModelForm.java:1074) >> .... >> >> I only get this error using a Centos server. Another server running > Windows >> has no similiar complaint. >> >> I looked at the code and cannot possibly see how a single copy of the >> ModelForm object could be used in multiple threads? The list causing the >> grief is the fieldList and a new one is instantiated each time the > modelform >> is created, i.e. it is not static. >> >> This server runs for a few days before this error occurs. >> >> Note that this exception is from 9.0 based ofbiz code. I did a comparison >> of the 9x code and the 10.x ModelForm.java code and see that this stuff > has >> been almost completely rewritten. >> >> Anyone have any insite? >> >> Skip >>
