Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6410

Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?

Date	2011-07-22 14:53 -0400
From	Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
References	(1 earlier) <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106302251380.3024@urchin.earth.li> <4e28c4c4$0$308$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j0atr0$vph$2@speranza.aioe.org> <4e298683$0$315$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <D4Cdna1YPbEkOLTTnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Message-ID	<4e29c722$0$313$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> (permalink)
Organization	SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/22/2011 12:30 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 7:17 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/22/2011 12:20 AM, Henderson wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2011 8:30 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2011 6:04 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Alex J wrote:
>>>>>> The better decision, IMHO, would be to introduce lock/wait mechanics
>>>>>> for only, say, the Lockable descendants.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with this, actually. There might be some small performance
>>>>> improvement, but it would also make the locking behaviour of code more
>>>>> explicit, and so clearer.
>>>>
>>>> Given that Java does not allow multiple inheritance then that would
>>>> have been tough restriction.
>>>
>>> Others suggested that Lockable could have been a marker interface with
>>> special significance to the compiler, ala Serializable. Java allows
>>> multiple inheritance of interfaces.
>>
>> It could be, but does that provide any space in the data structure?
>
> Compiler magic. Just as the compiler reacts the lack of any constructor
> by generating a default constructor, it would react to the Lockable
> interface by generating a field to contain the lock data.

It is possible.

I am not a big fan of that type of magic, but it is possible.

Arne

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:30 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-22 00:20 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:17 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:30 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:45 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 14:53 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-07-22 04:39 +0000
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:19 -0400

csiph-web