Feedback and comments on ARM proposal

[Tim Peierls]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net> wrote:
> > the coin-dev list has yet to
> > come up with an example where ARM support is both appropriate and
> difficult
> > to provide under the proposal.
>
> We identified a whole pile of them.  java.awt.Graphics,
> org.eclipse.swt.graphic.Path, java.nio.channels.FileLock,
> org.ietf.jgss.GSSCredential, and java.awt.image.VolatileImage to pick
> a few.


Even if you think that all of these are appropriate, I don't believe that
it's difficult to provide adapters.



> > Getting a little OT: If you're using Lock.lock() and Lock.unlock()
> > exclusively now, unless you are using Conditions, you might as well just
> use
> > regular built-in synchronization. Your code will be easier to understand.
>
> Easier to understand, but unfortunately incorrect.  I use Lock
> where fairness is required.


Yes, fairness is another thing that synchronization doesn't provide. Let me
rephrase:

Don't use Lock unless you really need to. Most people don't need to. We
don't need a special construct for it.

--tim