Stephen, I don't know about using 0 to indicate that it's a wait forever situation. A negative number would be better for that, wouldn't you say? A 0 would mean that you don't want to wait at all (of course, why would you use BlockingBuffer if you're going to supply a 0).
James -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:53 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: [collections] BlockingBuffer and TimeoutBuffer Having had a look at the new class TimeoutBuffer, I realised that it could just be written as an extra parameter to BlockingBuffer. I think this would be cleaner. BlockingBuffer.decorate(buf); // no timeout BlockingBuffer.decorate(buf, timeout); // timeout The method implementation will simply check if the stored timeout value is zero. If it is it does the get()/remove() as is, otherwise it uses get(long)/remove(long). Note that adding a new field inn this case is OK with serialization as the field will default to zero if an old version of the class is deserialized using the new jar. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
