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

Bob Lee crazybob at crazybob.org
Fri Dec 12 19:38:26 EST 2008


On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com>wrote:

> I am not so sure about this one. Once there are ephemerons the value
> reference would be cleaned up with the key. If ephemerons aren't available,
> it could be possible to have eager value collection where a cleanup thread
> nullifies the value reference. The only garbage that would remain in that
> case would be a Entry object. Writes would then just replace the
> "tombstoned" entries (potentially cleaning up others).


Good point about ephemerons. Here's a question: does it make sense to bother
with a non-concurrent version at all given that the performance difference
(in the uncontended and read-only cases) is almost indiscernible?

Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20081212/53695c85/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list