Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of custom sync

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

Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of custom sync

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 wrote: > A C

Re: [DBCP] Abandoned trace should use CopyOnWriteArrayList instead of custom sync

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 wrote: > Hi All and Phil: > > In [DBCP] Abandoned trace we use an Array with synchronized b

[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