RE: weakly referenced paged queries

From: Scott Anderson (sanderso..irvana.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2008 - 17:57:35 EDT

  • Next message: Øyvind Harboe: "Re: weakly referenced paged queries"

    Why do you expect there to be a comment justifying it? It's necessary to lock all collections while iterating over or modifying them if they can be vulnerable to concurrent modification.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: oyvindharbo..mail.com [mailto:oyvindharboe@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Øyvind Harboe
    Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:42 PM
    To: use..ayenne.apache.org
    Subject: Re: weakly referenced paged queries

    On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Scott Anderson <sanderso..irvana.com> wrote:
    > It looks like the synchronized block is designed to prevent concurrent modification
    > of the list. I don't believe that particular code would suffer the consequences
    > if concurrent modification occurred, but it's generally best to synchronize
    > list access when in doubt, since even a simple iteration can be the offender.

    I find that code that is added because one hasn't defined what the
    interface should be, is trouble waiting to happen.

    I would be much more comfortable, if either:

    - the JavaDoc explained *why* the synchronization is there and what it
    is supposed to do and how the client is supposed to use it.
    - it serves some internal purpose and that purpose was stated as a comment
    in the code
    - the synchronization code was deleted(faster + less chance of deadlock).

    -- 
    Øyvind Harboe
    http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
    ARM7 ARM9 XScale Cortex
    JTAG debugger and flash programmer
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jun 20 2008 - 17:58:31 EDT