[concurrency-interest] @Contended (JEP-142)
kirk at kodewerk.com
Thu Nov 29 06:17:39 EST 2012
Ok, I've already voiced my opinion that this annotation isn't the way to go.. having said that I've preferred the suggestions that this end up in a new package where all the "toxic" functionality ;-) can be placed. For example having the Instrumentation support in the java.lang.instrumentation package makes a whole lot of sense. j.l.vm maybe?
One thing that isn't clear.... if this makes it into the general JDK package structure i'd assume that other JVM's would have to support it in order to pass the TCK. If so, have the other JVM authors been able to comment on this?
On 2012-11-29, at 10:43 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 08:42 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> Going down that path, makes me feel like having it in a more "public"
>> package would be a better choice. The name "Contended" is now going to
>> be a "reserved" name for many people, when used in annotation form. So,
>> why not just make it a publicly defined "annotation" which has
>> appropriate implementation in appropriate environments?
> Any concrete suggestion? j.u.c.Contended? j.u.c.hints.Contended?
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
More information about the Concurrency-interest