Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: 27 Dec 2001 15:48:16 -0000
Message-ID: <20011227154816.3211.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5556]  -
    [PATCH] synchronization in Cocoon.java

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5556>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5556

[PATCH] synchronization in Cocoon.java


------- Additional Comments From bloritsch@apache.org  2001-12-27 07:48 -------
So basically, we aren't tracking max values anymore?  That's fine.
Perhaps when Avalon's instrumenting is officially done, there will
be no need to use logging for this purpose ;).

BTW, I agree that there should be no statics in Cocoon, as it is basically a
singleton in this system.  Synchronizing statics assumes that there are multiple
Cocoon instances simultaneously manipulating that information.  This is not
the case.  By having them static, you are allowing sample information to persist
between invocations of Cocoon.  That is not necessary for what we are doing,
especially since it only made sense for max value recording.

If these are stats that must be kept accurate, they should be marked volitile
so that CPUs do not attempt to cache that value and multi-CPU environments have
an accurate count at all times.  Otherwise, the patch is fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org