From: Lothar Kimmeringer on
Mayeul wrote:

> Lothar Kimmeringer wrote:
>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>
>>> I have got in trouble with SimpleDateFormat not being thread safe.
>>
>> How possibly _could_ a SimpleDateFormat be thread safe?
>
> ?
>
> What do you mean ? It looks to me if SimpleDateFormat had been designed
> immutable, it would make sense to have it thread-safe, as other
> languages or libraries have it.

I mean, how can you expect it to be thread safe if the Javadoc
clearly states

| Synchronization
|
| Date formats are not synchronized. It is recommended to create
| separate format instances for each thread. If multiple threads
| access a format concurrently, it must be synchronized externally.

> Actually, even though its mutable, I would have expected it to be
> thread-safe as long as you don't mutate it anymore. Thankfully the
> JavaDoc is clear that it's not. Oh well.

Ah, you read it (now) ;-)


Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang(a)kimmeringer.de
PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
questions!
From: Roedy Green on
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:36:35 +0100, Lothar Kimmeringer
<news200709(a)kimmeringer.de> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

>I mean, how can you expect it to be thread safe if the Javadoc
>clearly states

It was quite some time ago I got in trouble. I suppose I thought of a
SimpleDateFormat as sort of static final constant, like the string
that describes a Regex.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time.
~ Tom Cargill