[concurrency-interest] wikipedia article
Dhanji R. Prasanna
dhanji at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 23:21:42 EDT 2006
On 6/29/06, David Holmes <dcholmes at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> The reference re Microsoft is completely incorrect. There was a very
> early Java Threads whitepaper that defined a strict priority-based
> scheduling model. That model was not implementable on Solaris or Windows at
> the time, without involving the real-time scheduling classes of the OS. The
> spec was subsequently relaxed.
Good to know!
Second any reference to "protecting code" versus "protecting data" is very
> misleading and confusing. You protect data by controlling the code that
> accesses that data. The level of abstraction at which you do this then lends
> some people to characterise as "protecting data" or "protecting code". An
> abstraction involving shared objects that can't be accessed in anything but
> a thread-safe manner would be classified as "data protection". Java doesn't
> provide that directly but allows you build this by applying "code
> protection" in the right way.
I agree strongly about the wording. In any case at a core-API level of
abstraction java provides this "data protection" with atomic references.
Thanks very much for clearing that up viz MS.
> David Holmes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Concurrency-interest