[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-dev
Subject:    RE: JMX exception
From:       "Dhawan, Vikram (LNG-DAY)" <vikram.dhawan () lexisnexis ! com>
Date:       2006-03-30 14:38:16
Message-ID: B2E52C321789B2499E54141B682F437806A4E0D6 () LNGDAYEXCP01VA ! legal ! regn ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

James, 

Thanks for your help. I will look at the latest SVN HEAD and let you know.

Vik
-----Original Message-----
From: James Strachan [mailto:james.strachan@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:17 AM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: JMX exception

I've just reviewed the code - there was one possible code path
(recovery) which could access the collection which was causing the
concurrent modification exception. All other accesses are within a
synchronized block so there is no possibility of the concurrent access
exception.

I wonder could you retry with SVN HEAD to see if you can still produce this?

James

On 3/24/06, vik Dhawan <vikram.dhawan@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> I looked at the code for method removeMessage() in the
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Queue Class. This code is removing a
> message from the fail-fast iterator obtained in the code.
>
> It's definitely a hot spot for "java.util.ConcurrentModificationException"
> what i am seeing.
>
> I am not sure why developer of this code have chosen this implementation
> when its clearly written in Sun Collection Java docs for iterators.
>
> I will really appreciate if some one can explain that.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JMX-exception-t1337321.html#a3578256
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev forum at Nabble.com.
>
>


--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]