I believe that 0 is what the JDK uses in Object.wait(long) for an
infinite wait. A negative number would also mean infinite.
Stephen
James Carman wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
