commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1051649 - /commons/proper/pool/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:41:20 GMT
Hi guys,
thanks for the quick feedbacks, I marked them as synchronized just
because in one of the last threads we agreed to make them
synchronized.
If there is the need to make class fields volatile instead, it's fine
by me but I suggest to discuss about it in another thread to involve
everybody in the decision.
WDYT?
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2010 20:58, simonetripodi@apache.org wrote:
>> > Author: simonetripodi
>> > Date: Tue Dec 21 20:58:34 2010
>> > New Revision: 1051649
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1051649&view=rev
>> > Log:
>> > fixed non-synchronized methods
>>
>> Could the fields be volatile instead? I'd rather avoid use of
>> synchronized if at all possible.
>>
>
> I was thinking the same thing.  The only reason that I can see to make the
> accessors synchronized is to ensure consistent values within synchronized
> blocks.  I think it is OK to leave that to the implementations, but we
> should probably doc that somewhere if we go this route.
>
> Phil
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>

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


Mime
View raw message