commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool2] again on get rid of synchronized block
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:21:51 GMT
On 12/12/11 10:56 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/12/11 10:26 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> time ago we spoke about replacing the synchronized blocks inside
>> pools, maybe using different strategies like Java5 Read/Write lock (I
>> remind you Pool2 requires Java5) and I just started playing with
>> PoolUtils with the SynchronizedObjectPool[1] inner class...
>> Can we discuss about introducing such modifications inside pool implementations?
> I would say go for it in PoolUtils.  Assuming we keep these pools,
> we should update them as we have GOP, GKOP.  Regarding the pool you
> mention specifically, it is a little funny in that it is designed to
> be fully synchronized.  Make sure that whatever implementation
> changes you propose maintain the contract.

Looking at the github code, I think there may be a problem.  Borrow
is as much a "write" operation as return - both modify the state of
the pool. 

Phil
>
> Phil
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> [1] https://gist.github.com/1468252
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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