On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Related to this, is HttpCore which switch from JCIP style annotations
>> (4.x) to @Contract (5.x). I'll ask that ML for the reason/experience.
>>
>
> Acoording to Oleg:
> --
> The
Related to this, is HttpCore which switch from JCIP style annotations (4.x)
to @Contract (5.x). I'll ask that ML for the reason/experience.
Gary
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.04.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Gilles:
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:32 +0200, Emmanuel Bo
Am 19.04.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:32 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 19/04/2017 à 00:23, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>
>>> I'd like to see a real example before we talk about abstract
>>> arguments and
>>> counter-arguments, which will never end ;-)
>>
>> Ok,
>
>
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:32 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/04/2017 à 00:23, Gary Gregory a écrit :
I'd like to see a real example before we talk about abstract
arguments and
counter-arguments, which will never end ;-)
Ok,
Good. [If only...] ;-)
here is a slightly more substantial ex
Le 19/04/2017 à 00:23, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I'd like to see a real example before we talk about abstract arguments and
> counter-arguments, which will never end ;-)
Ok, here is a slightly more substantial example. The following class is
immutable but not thread-safe:
public class FileAppen
Hi,
> Am 19.04.2017 um 00:14 schrieb Gary Gregory :
>
> I'm OK with dropping them for 3.6 to avoid blocking the release and talking
> some more. Either way.
Okay, I’ll remove them from the code base before I prepare RC2.
Benedikt
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Pascal Schumache
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 18/04/2017 à 23:06, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
> > This use case does not make sense to me. If an object is immutable, then
> it
> > is thread safe. If you want to include an asynchronous external resource
> as
> > part of your object, the
I'm OK with dropping them for 3.6 to avoid blocking the release and talking
some more. Either way.
Gary
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Pascal Schumacher wrote:
> I'm fine with either variant. We should not forget that the reason for
> adding these annotations was documenting thread-safety of
I'm fine with either variant. We should not forget that the reason for
adding these annotations was documenting thread-safety of lang classes.
This should not hold up the release, the feature can be postponed to 3.7
if it requires further discussion/thought.
Cheers,
Pascal
Am 18.04.2017 um 0
Le 18/04/2017 à 23:06, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> This use case does not make sense to me. If an object is immutable, then it
> is thread safe. If you want to include an asynchronous external resource as
> part of your object, then the object might not be in fact, immutable.
> Speaking of a specific
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 18/04/2017 à 08:36, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> I think I tend to prefer the JCIP style. ThreadingBehavior conflates the
> notions of thread safety and immutability and intuitively I'd keep them
> separate, even if they ar
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:31 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 April 2017 at 07:36, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
> >
> > (1) JCIP
> > (2) Apache HttpComponents Core
>
> Where are those located?
>
(1) JCIP inspired:
org.apache.co
Le 18/04/2017 à 08:36, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Thoughts?
I think I tend to prefer the JCIP style. ThreadingBehavior conflates the
notions of thread safety and immutability and intuitively I'd keep them
separate, even if they are often closely related. An object could be
immutable and not thread
On 18 April 2017 at 07:36, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
>
> (1) JCIP
> (2) Apache HttpComponents Core
Where are those located?
I think it's important to be clear exactly what is being discussed.
What about the annotations, Co
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Am 18.04.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Gary Gregory :
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
>>
>> (1) JCIP
>> (2) Apache HttpComponents Core
>>
>> I would like to delete (1) in favor of (2). I started this discussion
>>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Benedikt Ritter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Am 18.04.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Gary Gregory :
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
> >
> > (1) JCIP
> > (2) Apache HttpComponents Core
> >
> > I would like to delete (1) in fa
Hi,
> Am 18.04.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Gary Gregory :
>
> Hi All:
>
> We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
>
> (1) JCIP
> (2) Apache HttpComponents Core
>
> I would like to delete (1) in favor of (2). I started this discussion
> inappropriately on a VOTE thread, sorr
Hi All:
We have two styles for the new concurrency annotations in master:
(1) JCIP
(2) Apache HttpComponents Core
I would like to delete (1) in favor of (2). I started this discussion
inappropriately on a VOTE thread, sorry for the redo.
Then we can proceed with another release candidate.
Also
18 matches
Mail list logo
