I have already forward your 2 emails to TOMCAT-developer, haha :-)
Bo
Dec.06, 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kilbride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Double check idiom broken - Tomcat uses it ?
> 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 outDated = compiler.isOutDated();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 if(!jsw.isInstantiated() || outDated ) {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 outDated = compiler.compile();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 if(!jsw.isInstantiated() || outDated) {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]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
