On 9/22/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 9/22/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, I've never thought about it from that angle.
>
> There are always corner scenarios that you can take advantage of ;-).
True hacker spirit! :-)
> > There are some
> > internal caches that get modified even in read-only sessions. I don't
> > think those data structures are thread-safe, so you might end up
> > corrupting the internal state.
>
> Yes, I've noticed those but I remember most of them were synched
> collections. However, I will try to recheck. If you can point some
> places upfront that would be great, and would limit my research a lot.
Check at least the CachingHierarchyManager and ItemStateReferenceCache classes.
I think I have pretty good news for me :-).
CachingHierarchyManager uses synchronized blocks around all cache operations.
ItemStateReferenceCache is used from either LocalItemStateManager
(that deals with updatable nodes) and from SharedItemStateManager
(deals with shared states/read-only state). And the 2nd one looks
pretty good from concurrency point of view (I still have to study it
in more detail).
So, I guess I can give it a try, with my extremely corner scenario
(and I would like this to be very clear to other users, so that they
will not try it without investigating it in depth).
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
