RE: [picocontainer-dev] SynchronizedComponentAdapter ???

Hi Paul,

Paul Hammant wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:17 PM:

> 'Monster' is relative ;-)
> 
> One new member var 'lock' (that's final), and ....
> 
>      public Object getComponentInstance(PicoContainer container)
>              throws PicoInitializationException,
> PicoIntrospectionException, AssignabilityRegistrationException,
> NotConcreteRegistrationException {
>          if (instanceReference.get() == null) {
>              Object tmp = super.getComponentInstance(container);
>              synchronized (lock) {
>                  if (instanceReference.get() == null) {
>                      instanceReference.set(tmp);
>                  }
>              }
>          }
>          return instanceReference.get();
>      }
> 
> instead of ....
> 
>      public Object getComponentInstance(PicoContainer container)
>              throws PicoInitializationException,
> PicoIntrospectionException, AssignabilityRegistrationException,
> NotConcreteRegistrationException {
>          Object instance = instanceReference.get();
>          if (instance == null) {
>              instance = super.getComponentInstance(container);
>              instanceReference.set(instance);
>          }
>          return instance;
>      }
> 
> It gets rid of two classes, and is the minimally contentious way in
> that synchronized could be done for CCA.
> 
> Thoughts?

So, will you synchronize always (Hint: Why exist StringBuilder)? ;-)

And, will you also add the synchronization to the PoolingCA in consequence (and other CA impls that have some sort of cache that might be initialized twice e.g. ApplicationContextCA or ServletContextCA)?

- Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email