On 11/14/05, Mark Phippard <markp@softlanding.com> wrote:
> I do not think it is at all unreasonable for a Java library to declare its
> thread-safety. I have seen several that flat-out say they are not thread
> safe. I do not see the problem with JavaHL providing a thread-safe and
> non thread-safe version of the interface. It is hardly a burden to change
> your code from:
>
> SVNClientInterface client = new SVNClient();
>
> to
>
> SVNClientInterface client = new SVNClientSynchronized();
>
> If you need thread safety.
That's fine, I have no problem with that, but if it is the case it
should at least be documented. Right now all there is in
SVNClientSynchronized is a javadoc comment saying this is a thread
safe wrapper for SVNClient, which to me implies "here is a version of
SVNClient you can instantiate and use from multiple threads", not "if
you have multiple threads using this library at all they better all go
through this class or it'll have the potential to break horribly".
> All this being said, it stinks that a fix for a JVM crash might not get
> into the next release candidate over issues that could have been brought
> up any time over the past couple of years. Yes, it would be great if
> Patrick were around and could vote for his own patches, but apparently he
> isn't. Is there no one else capable of reviewing and voting on these? In
> the end it is mostly just C++ code and is either valid or not.
It's not just C++ code, it's C++ and JNI and Java and the
interrelationships therin. If it was just C++ code I'd be able to
review it, as would other people in the project, but that's just not
the case for this change. The only other person I know of on this
project with any JNI experience is DLR, and he's not sure the patch is
100% right.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 14 22:49:31 2005