Hi guys, thanks for the quick feedbacks, I marked them as synchronized just because in one of the last threads we agreed to make them synchronized. If there is the need to make class fields volatile instead, it's fine by me but I suggest to discuss about it in another thread to involve everybody in the decision. WDYT? Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 21/12/2010 20:58, [email protected] wrote: >> > Author: simonetripodi >> > Date: Tue Dec 21 20:58:34 2010 >> > New Revision: 1051649 >> > >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1051649&view=rev >> > Log: >> > fixed non-synchronized methods >> >> Could the fields be volatile instead? I'd rather avoid use of >> synchronized if at all possible. >> > > I was thinking the same thing. The only reason that I can see to make the > accessors synchronized is to ensure consistent values within synchronized > blocks. I think it is OK to leave that to the implementations, but we > should probably doc that somewhere if we go this route. > > Phil > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
