On 2 June 2014 02:01, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > Am Sun, 1 Jun 2014 23:43:10 +0100 > schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > >> On 1 June 2014 20:19, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > well it is for sure thread safe. Not sure I get why final and synch >> > would be mandatory in this particular case (field will maybe be >> > cached by thread but that's not an issue since the value will be >> > unique). >> >> non-final fields are not guaranteed to be published across threads in >> the absence of sync. > > The two fields wont change, so there is no need for publishing changes.
But the initial value still has to be published correctly. > So they dont need to be volatile. They could be made however final to > make it clearer that they will not change (but IMHO this does not make > them more or less thread safe). Final fields are guaranteed to be published safely. > I feel indifferent about beeing able to turn off trace/debug by > overwriting the underlying logger. If we are really so logger > agnostic it is probably a good idea. At least when commons-logging is > not able to abstract this shortcoming away. I was not proposing changing the underlying logger. But it can sometimes be useful to change the log level during a test run. The caching prevents this. > Gruss > Bernd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
