Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: AtomicReferenceArray writes and visibility Date: 2 Apr 2011 06:28:28 GMT Organization: Private site at Eddersheim, Germany Lines: 26 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: X-Trace: individual.net cEyAsRcHZKb15ou4s/XB7QcfYu1XmRag+RTut0F7sh16JqoOjF Cancel-Lock: sha1:YZbGKv4EEzq4gZU2EekApq2wNBI= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:2723 Peter Duniho wrote: > On 3/30/11 10:43 PM, Volker Borchert wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > reading on the "new" memory model and AtomicReferenceArray, it > > seems that anything done before a .set() on an AtomicReferenceArray > > "happens-before" anything done after a .get() on the same > > AtomicReferenceArray. > > > > Two questions: > > > > 1. Am I right? > > Essentially, but not literally. You need to qualify your statement to > specify that the action that occurs before the write (the call to set()) > has to be in the same thread as the write, and the action that occurs > after the read (the call to get()) has to be in the same thread as the read. That was implied, I forgot to state it explicitly. Thanks for the clarification. -- "I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy "I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert