[concurrency-interest] How seriously should we take broken doublechecked idiom

serge masse sergemasse1 at yahoo.com
Tue May 3 16:13:36 EDT 2005


I agree with Dawid. 

Finally a person on this thread with .edu in his
address who appears to be average iq or above.

serge

--- Dawid Kurzyniec <dawidk at mathcs.emory.edu> wrote:
> Bill Pugh wrote:
> 
> > Please tell me what project you work on so I can
> avoid it, or what  
> > company you work for so I can short your stock.
> >
> > Like others, I am appalled at your tech lead's
> attitude towards  
> > software reliability.
> >
> > There is essentially no cost to performing
> thread-safe lazy  
> > initialization in a correct way, and several
> > possible correct ways to accomplish it.
> >
> Not trying to argue with what you guys say and
> suggest as alternatives, 
> I think you might be a bit too harsh in reacting to
> the question. After 
> all, "double checked locking" idiom was once blessed
> and recommended, 
> and, correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have
> seen several uses of 
> it in core Java classes. It will take time and
> patience to educate 
> people that it is not correct; also, I can
> understand that people may 
> count that the idiom will work on SUN JVMs even
> though not guaranteed by 
> the spec, just because SUN once was using it in its
> own code. Even 
> though this expectation may be unjustified,
> especially on SMP machines, 
> still - educating (and especially un-educating)
> people always takes time 
> and patience. Also, after all, the fact that this
> question was asked on 
> this forum suggests that the company might actually
> be quite sane :)
> 
> Just my 2c,
> Regards,
> Dawid Kurzyniec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
>
http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list