Why do you expect there to be a comment justifying it? It's necessary to lock all collections while iterating over or modifying them if they can be vulnerable to concurrent modification.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Øyvind Harboe Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:42 PM To: user@cayenne.apache.org Subject: Re: weakly referenced paged queries On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Scott Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks like the synchronized block is designed to prevent concurrent > modification > of the list. I don't believe that particular code would suffer the > consequences > if concurrent modification occurred, but it's generally best to synchronize > list access when in doubt, since even a simple iteration can be the offender. I find that code that is added because one hasn't defined what the interface should be, is trouble waiting to happen. I would be much more comfortable, if either: - the JavaDoc explained *why* the synchronization is there and what it is supposed to do and how the client is supposed to use it. - it serves some internal purpose and that purpose was stated as a comment in the code - the synchronization code was deleted(faster + less chance of deadlock). -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer
