On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Florent Guillaume <fg@nuxeo.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: > I see. I think there's yet another potential explanation: even if glassfish > is careful to invoke the end() only after start() has fully finished in the > other thread, the java memory model does not guarantee that the effects of > the end() in one thread are visible to the other thread doing the start(). > The update of the PGXAConnection's state-variable might be sitting in the > CPU cache of the CPU running the first thread, not yet visible to the second > thread.
That's the whole point of volatile since Java 5, it enforces a barrier and "happens-before" semantics.
> However, I'm not sure if glassfish could guarantee that the start() > has really finished before end() is called, without using some operation > that would also force the CPU cache to be flushed, making the effects > visible. > > In any case, it seems like we should add "synchronized" to all the public > methods in PGXAConnection. The performance penalty should be minimal, and it > would fix any race conditions of that sort.
For Java 5+ this is really overkill. Florent
> > Can you test the attached patch? > > - Heikki > >
