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

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 03:36:52 EST 2011


On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com>wrote:

> I utterly disagree.
>
> JSRs should be places for standardization of existing mature or
> maturing markets.
>
> They are not a place for speculative experimentation. That should be
> done in a regular OSS project, or e.g. as part of mlvm-dev (as it
> seems to be that transactional memory is a VM feature, not a purely
> Java-language one).
>
> I also can't believe that we've got this far in the discussion without
> anyone mentioning Clojure's approach to STM, including co-ordination
> of its ref constructs. In particular, the retry semantics, and the
> requirement that transactions be side-effect-free seem incredibly
> pertinent to this discussion.
>
> Completely agree about the need for "managed concurrent references"
> though, and also that support for legacy libraries seems pretty much
> essential.
>
> However, let's not kid ourselves. Java is the world's
> centre-of-the-mean programming language - and unenforceable
> compromises such as Clojure's: "Transactions must be side-effect-free.
> Or else." are not practical for Java. If they're the best we can do,
> then we should leave STM out as a feature.
>

What he said.

Cheers,
√


>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Guy Korland <gkorland at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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,
> > ?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Concurrency-interest mailing list
> > Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>



-- 
Viktor Klang

Akka Tech Lead
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/> - Enterprise-Grade Scala from the
Experts

Twitter: @viktorklang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20111122/3c510540/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list