On 24/10/05, Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > are there any pool developers out there with time to pick this up? > > > > otherwise, we could probably do with a volunteer to go through and > > analyse these issues. anyone fancy taking a crack at this? > > I'm not a pool dev but I'll make some time to implement fixes for the > problems Mayur Naik found and submit patches. > > While I'm at it would it be desirable to transition to the privately > head lock idiom to defend against intentionally malicious code? eg to > defend against: > > synchronized (aPool) { > Thread.sleep(Integer.Max_Value); > } > > by making anything that synchronized on this synchronize on a private field. >
+1 If possible, but one cannot always do this. If a class is conditionally thread-safe, i.e. it needs external synchronisation - then the appropriate lock object must be made available to clients. E.g. HashTable needs external synch for its Iterator [Bloch, Item 52] S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]