[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5028?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14746219#comment-14746219
]
Pierre De Rop commented on FELIX-5028:
--------------------------------------
Carsten,
I looked at the last commit from rv 1703178 and now it seems that the
ungetService() is not checking anymore bad cases where the framework calls
ungetService() more than it calls getServices(). So, don't you think that the
following patch would be better:
{code}
public void ungetService( Bundle bundle, ServiceRegistration<S>
serviceRegistration, S o )
{
obtainStateLock( );
try
{
// unget the service instance if no bundle is using it
// any longer unless delayed component instances have to
// be kept (FELIX-3039).
// We also check if the useCount does not go below zero (when
ungetService is
// called more times than getService is called).
if ( m_useCount.get() > 0 && m_useCount.decrementAndGet() == 0 &&
!isImmediate() && !keepInstances() )
{
ungetService( );
}
}
finally
{
releaseStateLock( );
}
}
{code}
> ServiceFactory for components might return null
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-5028
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5028
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Declarative Services (SCR)
> Affects Versions: scr-2.0.0
> Reporter: Carsten Ziegeler
> Assignee: Carsten Ziegeler
> Fix For: scr-2.0.2
>
>
> There seems to be an uneven handling of locking/status information in
> getService/ungetService of the service factory registered by the
> SingleComponentManager. (I didn't check the other factories)
> We have a concurrent get/ungetService for the same service. While the unget
> service uses a lock around decrementing the counter, incrementing the counter
> and other actions in getService are not using the lock. There is a partial
> lock there.
> But this can lead to the problem that while the preconditions for getService
> are still fine, ungetService cleans up which then makes getService to return
> null.
> We have a huge app where we can reproduce the problem, I'll try to trim this
> down to a simple test case.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
