[RFC][plugin]: fix fixme

[Deepak Bhole]

* Dr Andrew John Hughes <ahughes at redhat.com> [2011-03-30 16:22]:
> On 10:46 Wed 30 Mar     , Deepak Bhole wrote:
> 
> snip...
> 
> > Why not synchronize the whole function? The whole body is synchronized
> > on a static variable anyway. I think the multi-threaded map access is a
> > genuine potential problem. Making the reference and unreference
> > functions synchronized and keeping everything else as is should be
> > enough to address that.
> > 
> 
> They aren't the same thing.  Making the methods synchronised is equivalent
> to wrapping the body in synchronized (this) and wouldn't protect against
> access to the maps from another instance.
>

There is only 1 object store instance at any given time.

> I don't see the immediate reason for three maps, but I don't know the rest
> of this code that well.  Can you explain how 'multi-threaded map access is
> a genuine potential problem'?  nextID is not going to take a long amount of
> time so keeping objects locked over that period doesn't seem an issue.
>

I meant it is a problem in the current code which does no
synchronization.

Deepak

> > Cheers,
> > Deepak
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew :)
> 
> Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> 
> Support Free Java!
> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> http://icedtea.classpath.org
> PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37