On 21 December 2010 22:44, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > 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.
+1 > 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. +1 > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
