On 21/12/2010 21:41, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi guys, > thanks for the quick feedbacks, I marked them as synchronized just > because in one of the last threads we agreed to make them > synchronized.
I can't find a that particular decision in the archives. Can you provide a reference please. > If there is the need to make class fields volatile instead, it's fine > by me but I suggest to discuss about it in another thread to involve > everybody in the decision. I don't see the need for another thread. All concerned should be reading this one already. My concern with any sync is that it runs the risk of introducing bottlenecks and bottlenecks are the number one performance issue with the current DBCP/POOL combo - particularly on multi-core systems that make lots of calls borrow/return. Ideally there won't be any syncs on the borrow/return code path. The current pool impl grabs a copy of the current config attributes (which are volatile) it cares about at the beginning of the method and uses them for the remainder of the method. If the config is changed whilst the method is executing - those changes have no effect on that particular execution. You have to do this anyway, unless you sync the entire borrow/return which is a *really* bad idea. Therefore, I think the syncs should be removed from the getters/setters and volatile used instead. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
