dedicated mailing list for concurrency
in Java. Sadly, that list has been defunct for quite some time now.
>
> -Pavel
>
>> On 21 Aug 2023, at 13:18, Albert Attard mailto:albertatt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
been discussed on concurrency-interest (at cs.oswego.edu <
> http://cs.oswego.edu/>), a dedicated mailing list for concurrency in
> Java. Sadly, that list has been defunct for quite some time now.
> >
> > -Pavel
> >
> >> On 21 Aug 2023, at 13:18, Albert At
ed on concurrency-interest (at cs.oswego.edu
>> <http://cs.oswego.edu/>), a dedicated mailing list for concurrency in Java.
>> Sadly, that list has been defunct for quite some time now.
>>
>> -Pavel
>>
>>> On 21 Aug 2023, at 13:18, Albert Attard wrote
een defunct for quite some time now.
-Pavel
On 21 Aug 2023, at 13:18, Albert Attard wrote:
Hello.
I hope all is well.
Do you believe it is a bad idea to enrich the Lock interface with a set of
default methods that safely release the lock once ready?
Consider the following (dangerous) exam
t;), a dedicated mailing list for concurrency in Java.
Sadly, that list has been defunct for quite some time now.
-Pavel
> On 21 Aug 2023, at 13:18, Albert Attard wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I hope all is well.
>
> Do you believe it is a bad idea to enrich the Lock interface with
Hello.
I hope all is well.
Do you believe it is a bad idea to enrich the Lock interface with a set of
default methods that safely release the lock once ready?
Consider the following (dangerous) example.
final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock ();
lock.lock();
/* Code that may throw an exception
