DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-09 08:33 ------- Is there some reason not to put the initialization code in a static block, thus avoiding the question of whether or when double checked locking works? I can't see any way this class could be loaded without wanting the initialization performed. Remy, could you provide an example of where double checked locking works or is "well justified" without additional synchronization (such as the volatile, or initializing the "locked object" in a static block)? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
