Will do...thanks for the verification.
Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khaled Noaman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: GeneralAttributeCheck threading bug?
> 
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> The 'GeneralAttributeCheck' has a threading bug. You are 
> correct about the fact
> that the XMLBuffer object will be overwritten when several 
> theads are running at
> the same time. Would you please open a Bugzilla bug for that problem?
> 
> Thanks,
> Khaled
> 
> "Murphy, James" wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been seeing some really weird schema validation 
> errors when parsing
> > simultaneously across several threads.  I have tracked the 
> problem down to
> > what I believe is an error in GeneralAttributeCheck.  It 
> appears as though
> > the GeneralAttributeCheck has a static instance (singleton) 
> of its self that
> > it hands out to TraverseSchema.  This isn't a problem but 
> the fact that
> > GeneralAttributeCheck contains an XMLBuffer instance that 
> it uses for
> > various string manipulations is the issue.  In 
> GeneralAttributeCheck.cpp
> > line 792, the XMLBuffer fBuffer member is used to store the 
> attribute value.
> > The raw buffer is passed to validate() to perform 
> validation.  If another
> > thread is performing attribute validation fBuffer is 
> overwritten.  This
> > causes the validation to fail.
> >
> > I just wanted to verify with the community that this is in 
> fact a problem,
> > or is a usage issue?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to