Re: [Quickfixj-users] QuickFIX/J deadlock (was: seizes up under load)

[Steve B. <st...@te...>]

> Why does quickfix.Session.next() need to be synchronized?  It looks like
> the synchronization in Session has been overdone.  There maybe some code
> in next() that should be synchronized, but definitely not all of it.

Hi Chris,

I'm open to doing lower level synchronization in next(). One potential
issue is performance of increased lock acquisitions and release activity,
but later versions of the Java JVM have reportedly optimized this
behavior quite a bit. Lower level synchronization would also be more
prone to thread safety bugs. That could be handled to some extent with
a specialized test suite for that purpose. To solve your problem we'd
have to not only do the locking at a lower level but also have separate
mutexes for inbound and outbound messages. Feel free to add an RFE
for this.

Steve