[concurrency-interest] PriorityBlockingQueue put() operation

Tim Peierls tim at peierls.net
Sat Nov 7 16:32:59 EST 2009


On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:

> There is a terminology problem here.
> Since locks are used, none of the methods are "non-blocking"
> in the currently popular technical sense.
>

True, but I think the term "blocking method" is more usefully (if sloppily)
applied only to "throws IE" situations.



> I don't know how best to describe an algorithm that
> will need to acquire a lock, but once it does so,
> will be able to proceed immediately, and not have to
> wait indefinitely for some other thread to take action.
> The word "wait-free" is taken.
>

"Effectively non-blocking"? "Contentious"? :-)

This is not a distinction I'd want to force on people who just want to use
j.u.c types without becoming concurrency experts.

--tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20091107/af401d6c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list