Right. That's what I was referring to here: "Therefore, if you set the pointer, forget to clear it, check into the pool and then check out again, once the thread comes out of the pool that pointer is still valid and if you replace it, they old value is available for GC."
That still doesn't mean a leak unless the pointer references an object that continues to grow and is never cleared. -bp On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > I could see some possibility of issues if your thread pools shrink and > grow, but as long as the references are traversable and self contained > not bound to any long lived object, the weak references in the map > should work as expected, correct? > > Also if you don't clear the value at the end of a request (for > instance), it could potentially hang around and show up in another > request when the pool thread is resurrected. > > Dhanji. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
