Re: [Springframework-developer] Please check these two things

[Martin K. <Mar...@St...>]

But isn't this bogus thinking? I mean replacing .equals with =3D=3D =
makes=20
the implementation more strickt and reduces semantical informations.
We are thinking about objects and there is no performance gap
to justify this modification.

I wouldn't do it. I just would ensure that equals implementations=20
start with if(this=3D=3Dobject) return true;. How huge is the estimated
performance gain?


Cheers,

Martin (Kersten)
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Juergen Hoeller=20
  To: spr...@li...=20
  Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Please check these two things


  Well-spotted!

  ConcurrencyThrottleInterceptor should indeed use an internal monitor =
to avoid any potential for side effects. I doubt that this has caused =
any issue in practice, but it's nevertheless cleaner.

  That check in BatchSqlUpdate is not supposed to compare the elements =
but just the array reference: Repeated update invocations should not =
pass-in the same array instance repeatedly, with modified elements. Of =
course, a =3D=3D check would be sufficient for this. I've reworked that =
part a bit differently, though: BatchSqlUpdate stores a clone of the =
passed-in array now, so there shouldn't be a need for such a check =
anymore.

  Juergen


    -----Original Message-----
    From: spr...@li... =
[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf =
Of Dave Brosius
    Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:08 AM
    To: spr...@li...
    Subject: [Springframework-developer] Please check these two things


    These may be problems, and then again maybe not. But they seem =
odd/wrong to me


    1) In =
org.springframework.aop.interceptor.ConcurrencyThrottleInterceptor

    in method invoke

    uses wait on 'this'

    In my mind you are exposing your synchronization strategies as a =
public artifact, which leaves this class open to failure due to client =
code.=20
    The client code may unwittingly us an instance of this class to do =
it's own synchronization, and totally screw up this class.
    I would recommend doing synchronizations (especially the use of =
wait/notify) on a private member so client code can not effect it.



    2) In org.springframework.jdbc.object.BatchSqlUpdate

    in method update, you do

      if (!this.parameterQueue.isEmpty() && =
args.equals(this.parameterQueue.getLast())) {

    this is the same as using     args =3D=3D =
this.parameterQueue.getLast()

    or in other words, are these objects the same object. I assume you =
want to compare the elements of the array?