[concurrency-interest] Fence API
peter.jones at sun.com
Tue Jan 27 15:01:41 EST 2009
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:23:51AM -0500, Doug Lea wrote:
> Walking through discussions of the name for the method initially
> listed as "keepAlive", I'm giving one more shot to a concrete
> proposal before resorting to a poll/vote.
> The name "reachabilityFence" has a few virtues:
> * mentions reachability vs aliveness
> * "fence" implies the "here"-ness that was missing in other names
> * is of a similar form as other fences, so the spec can phrased
> in a similar way.
> Probably the main disadvantage is that it is more awkward-sounding
> that some other suggestions.
> An updated draft with this wording is at
> Please take a look.
I like that name. A nitpick perhaps, but this wording:
this method is applicable only when reclamation may have visible
effects, which is possible only for objects with finalizers
seems a bit narrow to me-- it can also apply when an entity external
to an object is tracking its reachability with reference objects (like
with the previously-mentioned RMI DGC use case, bug 6181943). Rather
than expand further here, removing the second "only" seems OK to me.
More information about the Concurrency-interest