[concurrency-interest] RFC -- Java7 java.util.concurrent plans
matthias at mernst.org
Fri Dec 12 14:41:24 EST 2008
Would that be a euphemism for a Dining Philosopher?
(Sorry couldn't resist)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM, 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 example,
>> we don't call DelayQueue "ConcurrentDelayedPriorityQueue".
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
More information about the Concurrency-interest