On 11 June 2014 11:38, Galder Zamarreño <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:31, Sanne Grinovero <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> as spotted by the testsuite - which was rightfully complaining - the >> CHMv8 which we backported from the JDK has a static ThreadLocal that >> it uses internally. >> >> Our copy is having the same, and so Dan enhanced the "ThreadLocal >> detection" utility in the testsuite to "allow" specific threadlocal >> instances; nice as at least infinispan-core now has no more failures. >> >> Next the bigger question: this might be ok in the JDK - which >> obviously doesn't get redeployed - but is it ok in our stuff? >> I guess the answer is no.. would you all agree that the CHM instances >> should share an instance whose lifecycle has to be managed by the >> CacheManager ? > > Either that or modify CHMv8 code to use a ConcurrentWeakKeyHashMap<Thread, > CounterHashCode> instance variable.
Right, but then we'd need to validate impact on performance, and Weak References are a nightmare for the JVM to organize. > We could also email [email protected] to get any other > suggestions from Doug et al? Worst case why not :) But I suspect we can handle this, and they might not be interested as it's not a bug in the JDK. Created: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4390 Sanne > > Cheers, > >> >> Cheers, >> Sanne >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > -- > Galder Zamarreño > [email protected] > twitter.com/galderz > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
