Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6393

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

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Henderson <h1@g1.f1>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Date	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 00:20:47 -0400
Organization	e1
Lines	16
Message-ID	<j0atr0$vph$2@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host	h1MICDOSuUTFyvkTQ7BjNQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit)
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6393

Show key headers only | View raw

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.

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