[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-1571?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12505421
 ] 

Howard M. Lewis Ship commented on TAPESTRY-1571:
------------------------------------------------

I'm curious ... what are you doing that clearing out the cache causes a 
loopback request into your application?

I'll likely take the patch either way (deadlocks are verboten, no matter what), 
but I want to know if there's an alternative.

> CheckForUpdatesFilter can cause deadlock
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TAPESTRY-1571
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-1571
>             Project: Tapestry
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: tapestry-core
>    Affects Versions: 5.0.5
>            Reporter: Ben Sommerville
>         Attachments: TAP-1571.patch
>
>
> CheckForUpdatesFilter will cause a deadlock in the following circumstances.
> 1) Initial request is received and processing starts  (CheckForUpdatesFilter 
> read lock obtained)
> 2) Request processing triggers another http request to the same application
> 3) Nested request is received
> 4) CheckForUpdatesFilter determines it is time to check for file updates
> 5) CheckForUpdatesFilter tries to obtain write lock
> 6) Deadlock: Nested request is blocked waiting for read lock held by parent 
> request to be released.
> This is an unusual situation, generally I wouldn't try to to access a page 
> via http whilst trying to process another request.  However I ran across this 
> problem whilst using a third party library (JasperReports) that referenced 
> resources via http links.  
> Although uncommon, I believe Tapestry should be able to handle this without 
> deadlocking

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to