[concurrency-interest] RFC -- Java7 java.util.concurrent plans

Joe Bowbeer joe.bowbeer at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 11:30:06 EST 2008


On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Bob Lee wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>
>> ConcurrentReferenceHashMap is more consistent with the naming of its
>> sibling classes, such as ConcurrentHashMap, whereas ReferenceMap is more
>> consistent with the naming of interfaces.
>>
>
> We should definitely consider consistency, but it doesn't trump all other
> factors, like making the name twice as long and much less catchy and
> memorable. "Joe, I think you want a concurrent reference hash map here," vs,
> "Joe, I think you want a reference map here."
>
> Bob
>

Right.  And as you know;) I prefer to reference instances by their interface
name rather than their class name.

Btw, would ReferenceMap implement ConcurrentMap?  I think that'd be
unexpected given its name.

I think this motivates ConcurrentReferenceMap at the least.

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20081210/eccf7544/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list