[concurrency-interest] RFC -- Java7 java.util.concurrent plans
kevinb at google.com
Fri Dec 12 14:35:02 EST 2008
In the debate between descriptiveness and usability concerns, I'd just
remind us that every name always represents a compromise between those two.
So we're not really debating one vs. the other, just at what point we feel
the right balance is struck.
If I had a vote, I'm with ReferenceMap (and DelayQueue). ReferenceHashMap
is also livable. ConcurrentReferenceHashMap is, to me, over the line; I
believe it would actually in practice be lesser-known and lesser-used for
its handicap of a name.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Alex Miller <alexdmiller at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd vote with Bob.
> I think having things in the concurrent package is a strong enough signal
> that the map itself is "concurrent". I don't see why every class needs to
> repeat the "concurrent" as in java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentBeardTugger
> (maybe a future addition).
> The only benefit I see of ReferenceHashMap over ReferenceMap is that the
> latter sounds like an interface in collections language and the former
> sounds more like implementation, which it is. That's kind a weak enough
> argument that I'd be happy to take the shorter path.
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Bob Lee <crazybob at crazybob.org> wrote:
> > I'd argue that "ReferenceMap" *is* consistent with other types. For
> > we don't call DelayQueue "ConcurrentDelayedPriorityQueue".
> > Bob
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
Kevin Bourrillion @ Google
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Concurrency-interest