Absolutely !
On 18/05/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps worth some comments to that effect, given it is a bit wierd.
On 18/05/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No - its a single instance of the Exception. So there's no leak...
> and the stack is not interesting... and there's no thread safety
> issue
>
> The exception is used to flag a particular type of exception which
> leads to an AMQP error
> There's no need to have the stack trace retained.
>
> It's just like having enumerated error codes returned.
>
> It's *ugly* code, I'll grant you that :-)
>
>
> -- Rob
>
> On 18/05/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just found this shocker:
> >
> > private static final ExistingSubscriptionPreventsExclusive
> > EXISTING_SUBSCRIPTION =
> > new ExistingSubscriptionPreventsExclusive();
> >
> > Looks like a really bad idea as doesn't seem thread safe, as mutliple
> > threads raising these exceptions will overwrite each others stacks. I
> not
> > even sure that throw is thread safe in that respect? This could also
> cause
> > memory leaks, because objects refed by the static stack dump won't be
> > garbage collected.
> >
> > Rupert
> >
>
