You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Kristian Waagan (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/07/28 14:57:18 UTC
[jira] Updated: (DERBY-4723) Using an instance lock to protect
static shared data in EmbedPooledConnection
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4723?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Kristian Waagan updated DERBY-4723:
-----------------------------------
Attachment: derby-4723-1a-remove_code.diff
Attached patch 1a, which removes the code using incorrect synchronization.
> Using an instance lock to protect static shared data in EmbedPooledConnection
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4723
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4723
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JDBC
> Affects Versions: 10.5.1.1
> Reporter: Wendy Feng
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: derby-4723-1a-remove_code.diff
>
> Original Estimate: 0.17h
> Remaining Estimate: 0.17h
>
> EmbedPooledConnection has the unsafe synchronization as follow.
>
> private static int idCounter = 0;
> private synchronized int nextId()
> {
> return idCounter++;
> }
> idCounter is a static shared data, and it is not proper to use a instance lock to protect it, especially when two instance of the class are created.
> it would be more safer to write this instead:
> private static synchronized int nextId()
> {
> return idCounter++;
> }
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.