4 Responses to JabberHTTPBind 1.1.1 »»

Comments

1. Madhuri Patwardhan
   Comment by Madhuri Patwardhan | 2009/01/09 at 06:11:57

   Hi Steve,

   This was the last correspondence we had about a bug in JabberHttpBind, in March 2008.

   ******************************************************************
   #
   Steve Kommentar by Steve | 2008/04/23 at 10:44:23

   Madhuri, you’re totally right, this is a bug. Access to session objects needs to be synchronized at this point. Guess I’ll have to rework this… (explains some strange behavior I’ve been noticing)

   *******************************************************************

   Any update on session object synchronization? I would appreciate if you could let me know status of this one.

   Thanks,
   Madhuri

2. Steve
   Comment by Steve | 2009/01/14 at 21:11:44

   Madhuri, I’m very sorry, I still haven’t fixed this issue. Unfortunately I’m still very busy with other things (”all work and no play …”). I’ll do my best to fix this ASAP.
   Cheers, -Steve

3. Maty
   Comment by Maty | 2009/08/01 at 21:11:52

   Speaking of concurrency and clocking threads, is there a special reason why not to use ConcurrentHashMap instead of Hashtable for storing the sessions?

4. Steve
   Comment by Steve | 2009/09/22 at 08:54:38

   Maty, besides I don’t know ConcurrentHashMap I’m pretty sure there isn’t

Leave a Reply »»

Name

Email

Website

• Comment Preview