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=18942>. 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=18942 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-03 20:15 ------- [Simon] > === Thread-safety [Eric response] I'm reasonably sure that the patch I provided is thread-safe, although I did not put a lot of analysis into making it so beyond the choice of Hashtable. I would think it prudent to add some unit tests to verify that. In considering thread safety, it is important to note frequency of reads vs. frequency of writes, as well as the potential cost of a read happening in the middle of a write. The only writes happening here are upon first call to getKnownStrings() - that method can be synchronized if we can write a test that shows it to be a problem. The performance of synchronization is not nearly as big a factor as it was in earlier JVMs, so I'm skeptical of any concern over its usage. Not that I want to promote unwarranted synchronization; I just would not sacrafice design and/or API simplicity or flexibility for the sake of avoiding synchronization. If it was demonstrated to be a peroformance problem, then I'd look at alternative designs to avoid it, but not until then. -- 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
