I agree. Maybe we don't need to make *Factory synchronized, but just pool impls. How does it sound? Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:45 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 October 2010 18:32, <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> Author: simonetripodi >> Date: Wed Oct 13 17:32:37 2010 >> New Revision: 1022205 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1022205&view=rev >> Log: >> fixed deprecated properties direct access >> added missing setters >> syncronized mutable properties (s|g)etters > > I think createPool also needs to be synchronised, as it references the > various mutable fields. > Alternatively, could make them all volatile. > > Otherwise if one thread sets the value and another calls createPool, > the second thread might not see the latest value. > > But perhaps the PoolFactory class does not need to be thread-safe at > all, in which case the synch. can be dropped? > > At present it appears to be thread-safe, but it is only conditionally > thread-safe. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
