[concurrency-interest] Questions about ArrayDeque

Joshua Bloch josh at bloch.us
Fri Jul 21 19:11:11 EDT 2006


Rémi,

Yes, I agree that the documentation could be improved.

         Josh

On 7/21/06, Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> Joshua Bloch wrote:
>
> > Rémi,
> >
> > On 7/21/06, Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> To josh, perhaps i am tired, but for me,  allocateElements() always
> >> allocates
> >> a power of two size.
> >
> >
> > Fair enough...
> >
> >> The other invariant is that head and tail must be
> >> different
> >> if the size is not empty, it seems to be the case.
> >> So i continue to think that this implementation is valid.
> >
> >
> > No.   Sun decided to make all collection "copy-constructors" robust to
> > concurrent modification of the argument.  This is wise, in light of
> > the fact that we now have true concurrent collections that cannot be
> > globally locked.  So Martin's objection is valid.
>
> sorry about my answer to martin, it was stupid.
> ok, i understand now.
> perhaps the third paragraph of java.util.Collection doc
> can contain a line saying that copy constructor must rely on
> the iterator of the collection taken as parameter.
>
> >
> >          Josh
>
> Rémi Forax
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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