[concurrency-interest]some superficial comments
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:42:08 -0800 (PST)
Having spent a little while catching up on Doug's aims page and the mail
to this list, I have little to add about the cancellation issues already
being discussed: RunnableTask looks clean and sufficient to me, though
the resetCompletionStatus method bugs me.
But, I would like to throw my two cents in on some naming and syntactic
issues that are in the air:
Rather than the name attempt, I'd much prefer to use tryAcquire.
I hate the name HandOff. Why not SynchronousQueue or RendezvousQueue?
(Yes, I know calling it a queue might be misleading since it doesn't
contain any elements, but I'd argue that, since it implements the
Queue interface, it's a queue.)
I like the name BrokenBarrierException -- it's clear.
I agree with Mark that there doesn't appear to be a good reason to
make Callable take an argument: this should typically just be a inner
class closure, like Runnable.
These attributes objects seem like conceptual overhead. I'd rather
just see the predicates as methods in the Lock objects.