[concurrency-interest] ReentrantReadWriteLock backport non-matching signature

David Holmes dcholmes at optusnet.com.au
Sun Jul 9 22:01:34 EDT 2006


Holger Hoffstatte writes:
> Maybe I'm missing something but why does the u.c ReentrantReadWriteLock
> return the static inner class instead of the Read/WriteLock interfaces in
> the first place?

I thought it was because the implementation classes had additional
house-keeping methods that are not part of the Lock interface. But that
isn't actually the case. The idea being that you could just type those
classes directly without having to do a cast.

> The incompatibility is a serious problem for everybody using
> retrotranslator or -weaver, and will likely just force people to continue
> using the backport.

I'm not familiar with those tools - what do they do? And why does this cause
them a problem? Do they try to match j.u.c signatures to those found in the
backport?

Cheers,
David Holmes



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list