> On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:11 AM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2016/1/28 9:25 -0800, g...@azul.com: >> This thread seems to have "hopped away" to the concurrency-interest >> list in mid-Dec-2015. This posting is intended to capture a summary of >> reasoning and some of the discussion there so that we have it in the >> record in core-libs-dev. Mostly by including the contents of several >> posts in the continuations of the original thread. >> >> See thread continuations here: >> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14576 >> and here: >> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14580 >> >> Summary: >> >> ... > > Thanks for the summary. > > I still don't buy the argument that this method belongs in j.l.Runtime. > > To say that this method should go there because it's an instruction to > the run-time system is pretty weak. I agree with Vitaly [1] that if > that's the threshold for adding methods to the Runtime class then lots > of other stuff belongs there as well, including much of what's now in > java.lang.Thread and java.util.concurrent and, arguably, anything else > related to interacting with the environment in which the application > runs (file and network I/O, process manipulation, etc.). > > This thread-related method really belongs in either java.lang.Thread or > java.util.concurrent.LockSupport. j.l.Thread already has plenty of > expert-level static methods related to the current thread, one of which > (Thread::yield) is even a hint, just like this one. j.u.c.LockSupport > is even more obviously intended for expert users and hence may be the > best choice, but I could live with either one.
Ok. In the interest of moving forward, lets settle on: Thread.onSpinWait() Same logic for the name, different receiver for the event. I can certainly live with it, and Doug seems ok with it as well. — Gil.
