On dinsdag, jun 17, 2003, at 21:36 Europe/Amsterdam, Michel Pelletier wrote:
Maybe I did this wrong, but aren't the two (and Greg's "synchronized class") all susceptible to this problem and it's not specificly a failure of the 'synchronize' keyword?
Yes, all mechanisms are susceptible to the same problem, they're probably all three functionally equivalent (i.e. anything you can code with one you can code with the other).
The point I'm trying to make is that designing your locks is hard work especially if there are many locks. Let's for the sake of argument say that the amount of work to get things right is quadratic in the number of locks. This means that any language construct that invites people to create many locks will make it more difficult to get the code right.
I realise the argument I make sound pedantic (let's not make it too easy to do locking, so that only people who know what they're doing will use locking), but that's the way I actually do feel about the subject. -- - Jack Jansen Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com http://www.cwi.nl/%7Ejack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -