+1 as well :) BR, Haim Yadid
> On 8 באוק׳ 2015, at 17:56, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: > >> On 10/08/2015 07:01 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>> On 10/08/2015 05:58 AM, Doug Lea wrote: >>> >>> class Thread { // >>> /** >>> * A hint to the platform that the current thread is momentarily >>> * unable to progress. ... add more guidance ... >>> */ >>> void spinYield(); > > should be: > public static void spinYield(); > >>> } >>> >>> In principle, this would also allow the implementation to do an actual >>> yield on uniprocessors or when the load average is high. Probably not >>> in initial implementation though. >>> >>> Adding a method to class Thread risks name clashes with existing >>> methods introduced in subclasses. So this might need a clunkier name >>> to effectively eliminate the possibility. >> >> If the method is static, then the impact of a clashing name should be fairly >> minimal. > > Right. For statics, pretty much the only concern is whether > reflective mechanics (Class.getMethod etc) return unexpected > entries that would break existing code. The name "spinYield" > seems unlikely enough to be a problem though. > > -Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > Concurrency-interest mailing list > concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest