[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FC-38?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14193168#comment-14193168
]
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on FC-38:
-------------------------------------
My first 'fix' (so called) is not correct. One can't acquire a write lock when
a read lock is already hold by the thread.
I'm trying to find a solution that actually works...
> Potential issues on synchronized protected elements
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FC-38
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FC-38
> Project: FORTRESS-CORE
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.0.0-RC39
> Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.0.0-RC40
>
>
> There are some classes where we protect a field with a synchronized in order
> to avoid concurrent modifications. That's ok, except that one should not
> access the field while it's being updated. There are a few cases where it's
> done, and this should be fixed.
> The way to do it is to use ReentrantReadWriteLock for that : it allows
> concurrent reads, unless a write lock is taken. Writes will block other
> writes and all the reads until it's done.
> The OrgUnitP and PolicyP are protecting sets while updating it that aren't
> protected when read (this is fixed for OrgUnitP)
> The AdminRoleUtil, HierUtil, PsoUtil, UsoUtil are all manipulating a graph
> object which is synchronized on update, but not on read. This is probably
> more complex to fix than for the OrgUnitP/PolicyP classes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
