Thomas,
>[...]
>
>
>>However, we have seen that wait/notify/interrupt is an area where the
>>implementations have not always conformed to the specification, even though
>>it appears that they could have. In most areas of IT I think one would
>>simply consider the implementations to be broken, and fix them. In this
>>particular corner, the view seems to be that we change the specification on
>>the grounds that it's easier, and existing programs have lived with
>>implementations that didn't conform to the old specification.
>>
>>
>
>I guess I regard it more as:
>
>The specification was hopelessly clueless about feasible threading models
>on real machines[*].
>
>The implementations have been less clueless and, where necessary, have
>conformed to how the universe actually works rather than to a rather
>naive specification.
>
>It's about time that the specification got a clue.
>
>
Damn straight. I'm sort of to blame for this. I filed a bug against
the spec a long time ago, but never quite got around to fixing it.
Sorry. I've been busy with a few other things over the years :)
Regards,
Josh
>
>
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:45 EDT