If you really want the developers to take a look at this, you should probably post it to the tomcat-dev list. It's iffy whether or not they will see it here.
Thanks, --jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "java programmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: Double check idiom broken - Tomcat uses it ? > Hi all: > > We all know that the lazy-double-check idiom doesn't > apply to Java because of the Java Memory Model (JMM). > > That is to say, look at code such as: > > Example a) > // Set by any other thread other than #1 > volatile boolean stop = false; > > // Thread #1 runs this as long as > // stop is false. Only T1 will call this > // method, so not synchronized. hence > // broken due to staleness of 'stop'. > // synch for _visbility_ ALSO. > void foo() { > while (!stop ) { //... } > } > > > Example b): The lazy double check idiom > public static Foo haha = null; > public static getFoo() { > if (foo == null ) { > sychronized (Foo.class) { > if (foo == null ) > foo = new Foo(); > } > } > return foo; > } > > Both examples are *guaranteed* to be incorrect. > Note, this is the case, *even* though I am using > 'volatile' for the stop variable. For more on the > JMM, consult Item #48 in Effective Java (Josh Bloch), > look at Bill Pughs' page at: > http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html > or check out Doug Lea's stuff. > Well, here is the thing: > > Quite idly, and randomly, I was looking at: > > org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet > > and I found: > > <snip> > outDated = compiler.isOutDated(); > if(!jsw.isInstantiated() || outDated ) { > synchronized(jsw){ > outDated = compiler.compile(); > if(!jsw.isInstantiated() || outDated) { > if( null ==ctxt.getServletClassName() ) { > <snip> > > This is a complex use of double check type > code and is really hard to analyse because references > themselves and what they point to can have > different levels of staleness (according to the JMM). > So it's a turbo double idiom type usage, possibly > incorrect. > > I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the > development team and make sure that *someone* has > really analysed this according to the JMM. (and > any other code, similar to this). > > Best regards, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>