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
