Hmm weird nobody else seem to notice this before, we just should make
it a concurrenthashmap
On 24/12/2008, 加納充照 wrote:
> The following errors occurred when the performance of the wicket
> application was tested.
>
> [Trace of error]
> [08/12/18 9:53:34:575 JST] 003e SystemOut O 2008-12-18
> 09:53:34,499 ERROR RequestCycle - concurrent access to
> HashMap attempted by Thread[WebContainer : 6,5,main]
> java.util.ConcurrentModificationException: concurrent access to
> HashMap attempted by Thread[WebContainer : 6,5,main]
> at java.util.HashMap.onExit(HashMap.java:217)
> at java.util.HashMap.transfer(HashMap.java:514)
> at java.util.HashMap.resize(HashMap.java:500)
> at java.util.HashMap.addEntry(HashMap.java:800)
> at java.util.HashMap.put(HashMap.java:441)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebApplication.addBufferedResponse(WebApplication.java:639)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebRequestCycle.redirectTo(WebRequestCycle.java:201)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.request.target.component.PageRequestTarget.respond(PageRequestTarget.java:58)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.request.AbstractRequestCycleProcessor.respond(AbstractRequestCycleProcessor.java:104)
> ・・・
>
> [Test environment]
> OS:AIX5.3 TL005 +WAS6.1.0.21
> Java:JDK1.5.0
> Wicket:wicket1.3.5
>
> [Consideration And Question]
> I think that it is a cause that the bufferedResponses instance of the
> WebApplication class is not the thread safe.
>
> The sessionDestroyed method and the addBufferedResponse method of the
> WebApplication class might have to be controlled exclusively(When
> these methods were declared in synchronized, the problem was
> canceled).
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org