You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2018/08/17 17:05:23 UTC
[DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of
custom sync
Hi All and Phil:
In [DBCP] Abandoned trace we use an Array with synchronized blocks. Should
we replace this usage with a CopyOnWriteArrayList and no custom blocks?
Gary
Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of
custom sync
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
org.apache.commons.dbcp2.AbandonedTrace.getTrace() is a protected method
which folks might be calling from custom subclasses. So if we did change
the internal representation we might have to do a conversion to support
this method.
Gary
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> A CopyOnWriteArrayList won't work since it does not support remove()...
> but the idea is to replace the ArrayList with a java.utl.concurrent
> structure...
> Gary
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:05 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All and Phil:
>>
>> In [DBCP] Abandoned trace we use an Array with synchronized blocks.
>> Should we replace this usage with a CopyOnWriteArrayList and no custom
>> blocks?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of
custom sync
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 8/17/18 10:13 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> A CopyOnWriteArrayList won't work since it does not support remove()...
> but the idea is to replace the ArrayList with a java.utl.concurrent
> structure...
Interesting idea. The thing to check is how method activations
depend on the locks. A quick look indicates that there is a mix of
"lock for snapshot" and "lock for integrity." j.u.concurrent things
tend to work nicely for the second but not for the first.
Phil
> Gary
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:05 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All and Phil:
>>
>> In [DBCP] Abandoned trace we use an Array with synchronized blocks. Should
>> we replace this usage with a CopyOnWriteArrayList and no custom blocks?
>>
>> Gary
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of
custom sync
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
A CopyOnWriteArrayList won't work since it does not support remove()...
but the idea is to replace the ArrayList with a java.utl.concurrent
structure...
Gary
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:05 AM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi All and Phil:
>
> In [DBCP] Abandoned trace we use an Array with synchronized blocks. Should
> we replace this usage with a CopyOnWriteArrayList and no custom blocks?
>
> Gary
>