[concurrency-interest] Bounded TransferQueue

Viktor Klang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 03:39:16 EDT 2010

Thanks Joe,

The problem with that would be that I'd have to wrap the queue and make sure
I have the Semaphore in place in all places that matter, and then implement
remainingCapacity etc, I'd rather not do that so if it's possible to

If someone has an impl under a permissive license (ApacheV2, MIT, BSD or
such) I'd be very thankful for it.


On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest

Viktor Klang,
Code Connoisseur
Work:   www.akkasource.com
Code:   github.com/viktorklang
Follow: twitter.com/viktorklang
Read:   klangism.tumblr.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20100824/3292e250/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list