Bug 41558 - Unnecessary synchronization caused by JspFactory.getDefaultFactory while servicing JSPs
Summary: Unnecessary synchronization caused by JspFactory.getDefaultFactory while serv...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Tomcat 6
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Jasper (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All Solaris
: P4 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: default
Assignee: Tomcat Developers Mailing List
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-02-07 06:03 UTC by Arvind Srinivasan
Modified: 2007-02-07 14:55 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachments
Patch to avoid invoking JspFactory.getDefaultFactory in jspService (5.85 KB, patch)
2007-02-07 06:06 UTC, Arvind Srinivasan 		Details | Diff
Difference in the generated code for hello_jsp.java before and after the patch (1.80 KB, text/plain)
2007-02-07 06:08 UTC, Arvind Srinivasan 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arvind Srinivasan 2007-02-07 06:03:18 UTC 
Tomcat version: 6.0.x trunk

Every generated JSP has 

    try {
      _jspxFactory = JspFactory.getDefaultFactory();
      response.setContentType("text/html");

in its _jspService method.

The use of JspFactory.getDefaultFactory during request processing should be
avoided as it is a *static synchronized* method.

I have a diff that addresses this and will attach it to this bug.
Comment 1 Arvind Srinivasan 2007-02-07 06:06:56 UTC 
Created attachment 19537 [details]
Patch to avoid invoking JspFactory.getDefaultFactory in jspService

The attached patch changes the .jsp-->.java generator so that
JspFactory.getDefaultFactory is invoked as a one-time operation.

The patch also consolidates JspFactory initialization in JspRuntimeContext.
Comment 2 Arvind Srinivasan 2007-02-07 06:08:14 UTC 
Created attachment 19538 [details]
Difference in the generated code for hello_jsp.java before and after the patch
Comment 3 Remy Maucherat 2007-02-07 14:55:20 UTC 
I did not realize this method was synchronized, so thanks for mentioning it.
There doesn't seem to be any reason for that.