> From: Chema [mailto:demablo...@gmail.com] > Subject: Re: Babysitting ThreadLocals
> Do you mean that read operations (getters) in not-threadsafe objects > are not an atomic operations and could retrieve "dirty" values cause > sharing across threads? Correct. Not-thread-safe means just what it sounds like. > So, singleton objects must be threadsafe to be a rea singleton ? Depends on the object. If you have written the class code to insure that ostensibly read-only operations do not mutate the object in any way, then you only need to provide synchronization when there's a risk of a non-read-only operation being active. If you didn't write the code, you have no guarantee that non-thread-safe getter methods don't mutate the object internally during their processing. - Chuck THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
