Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:18:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201101012018.p01KITbk005728@thor.apache.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50265] FormatDateSupport.dateFormatCache lazy init
 is not safe
In-Reply-To: <bug-50265-78@https.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50265-78@https.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50265

Jeremy Boynes <jboynes@apache.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends on|                            |32311

--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Boynes <jboynes@apache.org> 2011-01-01 15:18:25 EST ---
The caching was added to resolve 32311, which was opened due to contention
issues with DateFormat.getTimeInstance() calling Calendar.getInstance() which
was synchronized. However, the synchronized keyword was removed with Java 1.4
so this should no longer be an issue for us.

#32311 also notes that the calls to format() on the cached formatters are not
thread safe and need to be synchronized; this is missing from the current
implementation. However, in many applications the date/time patterns and Locale
are likely to be the same and the cache only holds one instance of the
formatter. By synchronizing on it we will introduce a contention point just
like the the fix was trying to avoid.

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

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