[concurrency-interest] Bounded TransferQueue

Joe Bowbeer joe.bowbeer at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 16:56:09 EDT 2010


In a previous discussion, Doug Lea wrote:

"For the bounded case, it's hard to do any better than use a Semaphore in
front of a LinkedTransferQueue."

http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2007-May/004108.html

I don't know if the thinking has changed any since then.

Joe

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Viktor Klang wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> It's late here and I've rummaged through the Internet in it's entirety so
> I'll get straight to the point,
>
> I have a dire need for a bounded TransferQueue, and the LinkedTransferQueue
> states that it's unbounded,
> does anyone have any suggestions where I can find a (highly performant)
> bounded TransferQueue?
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Viktor Klang
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20100823/ed32173b/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list