Feedback and comments on ARM proposal

Tim Peierls tim at
Tue Mar 10 09:33:15 PDT 2009

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Tim Peierls <tim at> wrote:
> > the coin-dev list has yet to
> > come up with an example where ARM support is both appropriate and
> difficult
> > to provide under the proposal.
> We identified a whole pile of them.  java.awt.Graphics,
> org.eclipse.swt.graphic.Path, java.nio.channels.FileLock,
> org.ietf.jgss.GSSCredential, and java.awt.image.VolatileImage to pick
> a few.

Even if you think that all of these are appropriate, I don't believe that
it's difficult to provide adapters.

> > Getting a little OT: If you're using Lock.lock() and Lock.unlock()
> > exclusively now, unless you are using Conditions, you might as well just
> use
> > regular built-in synchronization. Your code will be easier to understand.
> Easier to understand, but unfortunately incorrect.  I use Lock
> where fairness is required.

Yes, fairness is another thing that synchronization doesn't provide. Let me

Don't use Lock unless you really need to. Most people don't need to. We
don't need a special construct for it.


More information about the coin-dev mailing list