[concurrency-interest] Re: Concurrency-interest digest, Vol 1 #201 - 7 msgs

Nir Shavit shanir@cs.tau.ac.il
Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:08:52 -0500


Ori, I will call you tomorrow, I will have mor etime to talk then, hope 
tahts ok, Nir

concurrency-interest-request@cs.oswego.edu wrote:

>Send Concurrency-interest mailing list submissions to
>	concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	concurrency-interest-request@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	concurrency-interest-admin@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Concurrency-interest digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should
>       implement Number (Shyam)
>   2. Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number (Larry Riedel)
>   3. Re: Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number (Doug Lea)
>   4. Re: Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should
>       implement Number (Doug Lea)
>   5. Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number (Larry Riedel)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:27:33 -0700
>From: Shyam <Shyam.Ramamurthy@oracle.com>
>Organization: Oracle
>CC: concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should
> implement Number
>
>
>
>Larry Riedel wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It looks to me like think AtomicX provide a specific simple case of
>>confinement/synchronization under the control of the application
>>which happens to map cleanly to instructions which can be performed
>>orders of magnitude more quickly by the JVM or CPU than if they were
>>implemented them using the Java language level equivalents.  I do not
>>think they change the fundamental nature of the entities for which they
>>are providing that particular case of confinement/synchronization, or
>>that those entities which would benefit from the use of that efficient
>>implementation are necessarily inherently different in practice from
>>those which would not.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>A tangential comment on this : Would it make sense to have XYZ.atomicX 
>that would return a atomic version of X akin to 
>Collections.synchronizedMap?
>
>Thanks,
>Shyam
>
>  
>