Hmm weird nobody else seem to notice this before, we just should make it a concurrenthashmap
On 24/12/2008, 加納充照 <[email protected]> wrote: > The following errors occurred when the performance of the wicket > application was tested. > > [Trace of error] > [08/12/18 9:53:34:575 JST] 0000003e SystemOut O 2008-12-18 > 09:53:34,499 ERROR RequestCycle - concurrent access to > HashMap attempted by Thread[WebContainer : 6,5,main] > java.util.ConcurrentModificationException: concurrent access to > HashMap attempted by Thread[WebContainer : 6,5,main] > at java.util.HashMap.onExit(HashMap.java:217) > at java.util.HashMap.transfer(HashMap.java:514) > at java.util.HashMap.resize(HashMap.java:500) > at java.util.HashMap.addEntry(HashMap.java:800) > at java.util.HashMap.put(HashMap.java:441) > at > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebApplication.addBufferedResponse(WebApplication.java:639) > at > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebRequestCycle.redirectTo(WebRequestCycle.java:201) > at > org.apache.wicket.request.target.component.PageRequestTarget.respond(PageRequestTarget.java:58) > at > org.apache.wicket.request.AbstractRequestCycleProcessor.respond(AbstractRequestCycleProcessor.java:104) > ・・・ > > [Test environment] > OS:AIX5.3 TL005 +WAS6.1.0.21 > Java:JDK1.5.0 > Wicket:wicket1.3.5 > > [Consideration And Question] > I think that it is a cause that the bufferedResponses instance of the > WebApplication class is not the thread safe. > > The sessionDestroyed method and the addBufferedResponse method of the > WebApplication class might have to be controlled exclusively(When > these methods were declared in synchronized, the problem was > canceled). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
