[concurrency-interest] Re: synchronized vs ReentrantLock semantic

Dawid Kurzyniec dawidk at mathcs.emory.edu
Mon Jun 13 22:32:15 EDT 2005

David Holmes wrote:

>I think we (JSR-166 EG) do need to clarify the ReadWriteLock interface
>documentation, because at present while both readLock() and writeLock()
>returns Lock instances - and so have the specified memory model semantics
>relating to lock() and unlock() - what is missing is any statement that the
>two Lock instances act as if they read/write the *same* volatile. 
Which will be important not only because it will document the current 
implementation, but also because it will refine and strenghten the 
ReadWriteLock interface contract.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list