Hi Deven, I will address the needed updates a bit later.
Thank you for your input Best Lance On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Deven You wrote: > Hi Alan, > > The Java Spec does not mention the thread safe for JDBC API. But I see the > other code in SerialBlob/SerialClob have not consider it. > > I think use buff == null to replace isFree is a good idea because it also > avoid the problem for the condition buf == null && isFree == false so we > won't need create a readObject method. > > Thanks for your suggestion for isFree, I will correct it later. > > Lance: How about your suggestion? Since you mentioned you will develop the > implementation yourself. I use my implementation mainly for the test cases. > But you may also take a look my implementation. > > Thanks a lot! > > On 09/21/2012 04:37 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 21/09/2012 04:21, Deven You wrote: >>> Hi Lance, >>> >>> I am very busy with other work so I can't work with the >>> SerialBlob/SerialClob item for long time. I am very happy to refine the >>> current test case and create new tests for SerialClob. >>> >>> I have create a new webre[1] for this task, please review it. >>> >>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~youdwei/OJDK-576/webrev.01/ >>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eyoudwei/OJDK-576/webrev.01/> >>> >>> PS: If the isFree is not transient, I want to know how we add this field to >>> the javadoc serialized form? >> I don't know very much about the rowset API and I can't see anything to >> specify whether it is meant to be safe for use by concurrent threads. There >> are clearly lots of issues here and implementing free introduces a lot more, >> especially with the possibility of an asynchronous free or more than one >> thread calling free at around the same time. >> >> Have you considered "buf == null" to mean that the resources are freed? That >> might avoid needing to change the serialized form. Also as these types are >> serializable it means you have to consider the case where you deserialize to >> buf == null && isFree == false for example. On that point, it looks to me >> that this code needs a readObject anyway (for several reasons). >> >> A small point is that "isFree" is a odd name for a method that doesn't >> return a boolean. If the patch goes ahead then I think it needs a better >> name, ensureNotFree or requireNotFree or something like that. >> >> -Alan. >> >
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com
