[concurrency-interest] JSR 166 draft API

Mario Juric mario@ifad.dk
Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:49:38 +0200


Doug Lea wrote:

> ...we don't want to preclude supplying,
> say, non-reentrant mutexes in a subsequent release.

I think its a shame that non-reentrant mutexes are excluded from the first
release, because I really use them in a case where the lock is not released
by the same thread that has acquired it. This might seem a bit strange why
one would want this but it makes perfect sense in my case. However, I would
either have to keep using the current library or just include the parts that
I need or I will have to figure out an alternative solution to my problem
using the "new" library. I think none is really a big issue in my case but I
believe that it shows that there potentially will be others that eventually
will request non-reentrant mutexes. Even though they are less used I believe
they have their application areas, so why not include it from the beginning
when the current library allready provides it?

Best regards
Mario Juric

---
Mario Juric, M.Sc. CS, MUSTER Product Manager
IFAD, Forskerparken 10, DK - 5230 Odense M
Phone: +45 63 15 71 31 Fax: +45 65 93 29 99
www: www.ifad.dk e-mail: mario.juric@ifad.dk
---