Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 42198]  - Insufficient synchronization for
 CometEvent.close
In-Reply-To: <bug-42198-78@http.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
Message-Id: <20070423215205.DDBB571404A@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:52:05 -0700 (PDT)

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG�
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42198>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND�
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42198


matthias.reich@siemens.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #20017|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


------- Additional Comments From matthias.reich@siemens.com  2007-04-23 14:52 -------
Created an attachment (id=20025)
 --> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20025&action=view)
Corrected version of comettest.war

You are right - it is not a bug! I synchronized access to the output stream by
synchronizing on the event object, and the synchronization problem is solved -
Thank you for your quick comment.

Synchronization on the CometEvent object works fine with the current
implementation which reuses the same CometEventImpl instance throughout the
lifetime of a request, but is this part of the contract between container and
the Servlet?

I would not like the idea of synchronizing write operations on lots of
connections with the help of a single synchronizer object like the example
ChatServlet does. An alternative would be to synchronize on the
HttpServletResponse object. What do you recommend?

As I understood your comment, event.close and outputStream.close are not
intended to be coupled as close as they are in the current implementation.

Thus, would it be the recommended use of the Comet interface if the response
provider thread closes only the stream but not the event, so that the Servlet's
event method will be triggered with an END event, and the event method can
close the event?
Will a close of the event be required in case of an END event (e.g. to enable
recycling of request and response) or is it optional?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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