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

David Holmes dcholmes at optusnet.com.au
Fri Dec 12 21:14:38 EST 2008


I disagree - we prefixed CHM with Concurrent because it supports concurrent
access. The "Concurrent" prefix is descriptive giving an indication of the
kind of concurrency support that is given. It is not there simply because
something is in the java.util.concurrent package.

David Holmes
  -----Original Message-----
  From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
[mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Bob Lee
  Sent: Saturday, 13 December 2008 7:47 AM
  To: Joe Bowbeer
  Cc: concurrency-interest
  Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFC -- Java7 java.util.concurrent
plans


  On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>
wrote:

      As for consistency, only 33% of the collection types in the
util.concurrent package start with "Concurrent". As a rule, I think a type
should start with "Concurrent" if it conflicts with a type of the same name
in a different package (like HashMap and ConcurrentHashMap), but that isn't
the case here.


    ConcurrentHashMap and ConcurrentReferenceMap both implement
ConcurrentMap.

  We had to prefix CHM with "Concurrent" because of HashMap, not because the
interface name starts with "Concurrent".

  Bob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20081213/68be765c/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list