On 6/8/11 6:31 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 06/06/2011 08:34, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 6/5/11 7:32 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> The AbandonedObjectPool test case that I just commented out in >>> [dbcp] trunk is failing because GOP getNumActive returns -1. My >>> first thought was that this is a timing issue due to lack of >>> synchronization in invalidate and general non-protection of >>> _allObjects and _idleObjects; but I can't demonstrate this. Looking >>> into it now... >> I found the problem. The test object class was not threadsafe, >> resulting in multiple equal instances generated by the factory. >> This results in returnObject replacing rather than duplicating >> instances in _allObjects, which causes _allObjects to have fewer >> instances than _idleObjects. We need to think about this setup a >> little, as it will break if equal instances are ever generated by >> object factories and in circulation at the same time. I think it is >> a reasonable expectation that distinct instances generated by object >> factories must not be equal; but this is a new requirement and it >> needs to be documented and we might want to consider a guard for it. > Good catch. I'm not sure I would have found that anywhere near that quickly.
Thanks! Credit belongs to the [dbcp] AbandonedObjectPool test case, though :) > I'll look into putting a guard into pool for this. Could also be that we should make _allObjects and _idleObjects have the same semantics wrt equal instances, too. Phil > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
