Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6402
| Date | 2011-07-22 09:30 -0700 |
|---|---|
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? |
| References | <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <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> |
| Message-ID | <D4Cdna1YPbEkOLTTnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> (permalink) |
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. Patricia
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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