Re: how to make this code thread safer?

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:09:27 -0400

Message-ID:

<i25veb$47q$1@news.albasani.net>

markspace wrote:

I agree that the only practical way to pass an object to the EDT
involves a shared lock. However, invokeLater() makes no such guarantee,

Are you kidding? The whole documented point of 'invokeLater()' and
'invokeAndWait()' is to push things to the EDT in a thread-safe manner.

and they'd be within their rights to change their implementation of
invokeLater() and remove any shared locks, thus removing any
synchronization and any happens-before semantics. Contrast this with the

They totally would not be within their rights to do that, as it would violate
the entire point of the method. When you look at the source and see all the
work they did to build synchronization into those methods, you will understand
that it's there for a reason - to do what the methods freaking promise to do!

docs of some of the concurrent classes like Executor, which does provide
an explicit memory consistency guarantee.

I agree that the promise should be repeated in the Javadocs for the methods
themselves, but I'm not going to bet that anyone's going to remove
synchronization from the implementation of the 'invoke...()' methods.

--
Lew