Sylvia,
Thanks for the clarification.
I meant to refer to the "proposed" model in the community draft 2 doc.
_____________________________________________________
Evan Ireland eireland@sybase.com +64 4 934-5856
Sybase EAServer Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
_____________________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu
> [mailto:owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu]On Behalf Of Sylvia Else
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 10:56 a.m.
> To: javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu
> Subject: RE: JavaMemoryModel: Thread model algorithm.
>
>
> At 09:06 AM 18/11/2003 +1300, Evan Ireland wrote:
> >Sylvia,
> >
> >Is there any interpretation of the current model in which
> >"lost notifications" are inherent, other than when both an
> >interrupt and a notify/timeout occur around the same time?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here by the "current model". As
> specified in the
> JDK1.4.2 API, I cannot see that lost notifications are permitted. The
> JSR133 model is not finalised on this matter, but I don't think anyone's
> suggesting that it should permit lost notifications. Indeed, it's
> the need
> to avoid lost notifications that seems to be the source of the spurious
> notifications that the proposed model will allow.
>
> On which subject, I've noticed that my code doesn't test for the
> interrupt
> flag being set on entry to waitEx(). This is an omission, not an intended
> change of spec. It's easy enough to fix, (in
> ThreadEx.addToWaitSet), but I
> don't have the time right now.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> JavaMemoryModel mailing list -
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
>
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:53 EDT