juanpablo-santos commented on PR #307:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jspwiki/pull/307#issuecomment-1752606848
Hi @arturobernalg !
> However, this approach has limitations when it comes to working with
condition variables and allowing for custom scenarios. Specifically, using a
utili
Hi,
My apologies for arriving a bit out of context, so please excuse me if this
has already been asked or addressed, but can I assume that we would be using
the existing java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock class for this? I'm
trying to understand the question better. I don't see the need for
Hi Murray,
broadly speaking, synchronized blocks aren't go to play so very nice
with the new virtual threads functionality, so in order to take
advantage of them, the suggeston is to switch to something else,
namely locking with a ReentrantLock
Going that way, the PR ends up having a lot of block
Hi,
as usual the draft for next board's report (due to 11th); any edits,
comments, etc are more than welcome!
best regards,
juan pablo
[DRAFT] board report for 2023/10
---
board-reports/2023-10.txt | 34 ++
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board
Hi Juan Pablo,
So under the covers we'd be using a safe and approved JDK locking mechanism
in a way that can be re-implemented en masse should a new methodology arrive
in JDK 39...
Sounds good! In fact, I may rewrite my own use of ReentrantLock to encapsulate
that idea, thank you.
Murray
On 9/
Tx for preparing the report
+1
dirk
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:59 PM Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as usual the draft for next board's report (due to 11th); any edits,
> comments, etc are more than welcome!
>
> best regards,
> juan pablo
>
> [DRAFT]
arturobernalg commented on PR #307:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jspwiki/pull/307#issuecomment-1753342760
> Hi @arturobernalg !
>
> > However, this approach has limitations when it comes to working with
condition variables and allowing for custom scenarios. Specifically, using a
ut
HI JP,
The reports look good
+1
Arturo
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 6:17 PM Dirk Frederickx
wrote:
> Tx for preparing the report
> +1
> dirk
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:59 PM Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as usual the draft for next board's
> It makes sense to start with this abstraction for the sake of code
cleanliness and readability.
Agreed. Implementing a single Synchronizer class across the code base means
that should it need to be refactored in the future, it's straightforward
to do so (e.g., in any IDE it's trivial to locate
