[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