Am 29.07.2012 22:41, schrieb Ralph Goers:
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

Thanks for clarifying. I added a suppression in the Checkstyle configuration so that this warning will not pop up again.

Oliver


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



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to