jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (JCR-1793) The abstract base classes in jcr-commons should be synchronized
Date Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:16:36 GMT
Hi,

Jukka Zitting schrieb:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have the vague guts feeling, that this is not a good idea because it
>> creates too big synchronized blocks.
> 
> Why would that be a problem? By definition we should not be having
> more than one concurrent thread accessing such blocks.

ehrm, because the synchronized blocks may become too big, which is
always fragile.

> 
>> Therefore I would think, that this is probably not a good idea to do. It
>> would probably be better to enhance JavaDoc and tell "not thread-safe"
>> in big fat red letters.
> 
> The background to this issue is a ConcurrentModificationException that
> Angela spotted on the namespace map in AbstractSession. That map is
> only ever accessed and modified by public Session methods, so the only

then, why not synchronizing on access to the namespace map ? or isn't
this possible ?

> way for that exception to occur is if some client is already breaking
> the thread-safety contract of Session. That's clearly a bug in the
> client code, but IMHO relying on the correctness of client code is too
> fragile.

well, this is an interesting point ;-) While I think a service may
account for some client problems, it may not account for all problems.
Most notably, if a client is violating the contract, the client should
get into trouble -- the sooner the better .... But then, of course, YMMV.

Regards
Felix

Mime
View raw message