On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 21/12/2010 20:58, simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: simonetripodi > > Date: Tue Dec 21 20:58:34 2010 > > New Revision: 1051649 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1051649&view=rev > > Log: > > fixed non-synchronized methods > > Could the fields be volatile instead? I'd rather avoid use of > synchronized if at all possible. > I was thinking the same thing. The only reason that I can see to make the accessors synchronized is to ensure consistent values within synchronized blocks. I think it is OK to leave that to the implementations, but we should probably doc that somewhere if we go this route. Phil > > Cheers, > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
