Re: [rhmessaging-commits] rhmessaging commits: r1828 - store/trunk/cpp/lib.
rhmessaging-commits(a)lists.jboss.org wrote:
Author: kpvdr
Date: 2008-04-01 16:18:44 -0400 (Tue, 01 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 1828
[...]
===================================================================
--- store/trunk/cpp/lib/JournalImpl.cpp 2008-04-01 19:04:26 UTC (rev 1827)
+++ store/trunk/cpp/lib/JournalImpl.cpp 2008-04-01 20:18:44 UTC (rev 1828)
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
using namespace rhm::journal;
qpid::broker::Timer* JournalImpl::journalTimerPtr = 0;
+u_int32_t JournalImpl::cnt = 0;
void InactivityFireEvent::fire() { if (parent) parent->flushFire(); }
void GetEventsFireEvent::fire() {
@@ -64,6 +65,7 @@
if (journalTimerPtr == 0)
journalTimerPtr = new qpid::broker::Timer;
assert (journalTimerPtr != 0);
+ cnt++;
journalTimerPtr->start();
journalTimerPtr->add(inactivityFireEventPtr);
@@ -98,7 +100,7 @@
::free(_datap);
_datap = 0;
}
- if (journalTimerPtr)
+ if (journalTimerPtr && --cnt == 0)
{
delete journalTimerPtr;
journalTimerPtr = 0;
I believe this change is not threadsafe (unless there is some hiigher
level scheme to prevent Journal instance constructors/destructors being
called concurrently).
Perhaps a lazily initialised shared pointer might be a nice way of doing
that, with each journal instance taking a shared_ptr instance on
construction. If we had a factory class it could hold the singleton
instance via a weak_ptr and provide a method to get an instance. This
method would need to be locked to prevent multiple instances being
created; it would check whether the weak_ptr was valid, and if not
create an instance an initialise it.