On 11/03/2015 20:27, Christopher Schultz wrote: > Mark, > > On 3/11/15 4:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Author: markt >> Date: Wed Mar 11 20:01:28 2015 >> New Revision: 1665989 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1665989 >> Log: >> Add a comment >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java >> >> Modified: tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java?rev=1665989&r1=1665988&r2=1665989&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java (original) >> +++ tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java Wed Mar 11 >> 20:01:28 2015 >> @@ -1512,6 +1512,11 @@ public class AprEndpoint extends Abstrac >> } >> >> >> + /* >> + * This is only called from the SocketWrapper to ensure that it is >> only >> + * called once per socket. Calling it more than once typically >> results >> + * in the JVM crash. >> + */ >> protected void close(long socket) { >> synchronized (this) { >> closeList.add(socket, 0, 0); > > Is there a reason to prefer synchronized(this) here to simply using a > synchronized method?
Nope. Just poor clean up on my part. > As for an architectural comment: if only the SocketWrapper should be > calling that method, should the method not exist elsewhere... or with > some other kind of access strategy? I think the best I can do is make it private. Thanks for the review. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
