[concurrency-interest] Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number
Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:25:34 -0500
On Friday 09 January 2004 01:45 pm, Larry Riedel wrote:
> I would expect developers to use their objects in a sane way,
> and I think the language/API should primarily try to facilitate
> that, not try to preclude them from doing things which might
> be a mistake in some contexts.
Well, the point here is that those things would be a mistake in _all_ the
contexts for which AtomicX classes are designed, as they exist to support
unsynchronized concurrent modifications.
The comparable etc. exist for classes which are either immutable (from the
comparison point of view) or at least with the mutability under control of
the application (via either confinement or synchronization), so that the
comparison results may be relied upon for some definite period of time.
AtomicX have the exactly opposite intent: to facilitate concurrent
modifications assuming lack of confinement or synchronization.
Please refer to "Concurrent Programming in Java" (ISBN 0-201-31009-0) for