[concurrency-interest] Transactional memory on GCC 4.7.0, what about Java?

Guy Korland gkorland at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 18:39:58 EST 2011


Again, I think such discussion should be done under a context of a JSR.

But, for your comment, using "managed references" or some other explicit
model to mark managed references in my opinion might be a blocker for
adding STM to Java.
I don't see any chance for successful Java STM which is not composable and
supports calling legacy libraries.
Unless I'm missing something?

Guy

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:57:21 +0100
From: ?iktor ?lang <viktor.klang at gmail.com>
To: R?mi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
Cc: concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Transactional memory on GCC 4.7.0,
       what about Java?
Message-ID:
       <CANPzfU8-fH=Sgc6a1d8xvAtsDrMbWXVoaJ3udV5YH2KoqUwwfQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think that managed references is the only way to go when it comes to STM.
You can't make it implicit since traditional "OO"-code is completely ridden
with side effects.

Cheers,
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20111122/88351b5d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list