I used that specifically to avoid creating multiple combined configurations since it can be fairly expensive to create them. I looked into the guarantees that ConcurrentMap provides before I implemented that and included the comment since I knew it would catch someone's eye.
Ralph On Jul 29, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Oliver Heger wrote: > There is a checkstyle warning about double-checked locking in method > DynamicCombinedConfiguration.getCurrentConfig(). Indeed, the double-check > locking idiom is used, however, there is a comment saying that this safe due > to the usage of a ConcurrentMap. > > This may be true, but I wonder whether it would be better to use the map's > putIfAbsent() method and avoid synchronization. The worst thing that can > happen is that on parallel access multiple CombinedConfiguration instances > are created which can be passed immediately to the garbage collector. > > Thoughts? > > Oliver > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
