Re: Why ClockDaemon instead of java.util.Timer?

[Guillaume Nodet]

When weaving java.util.concurrent specific JDK 5 classes to JDK 1.4,
retrotranslator changes calls to the standard packages to calls to
the backport-util-concurrent package.

On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Retrostranslator uses Timer?

--jason

On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

I think we should switch to backport-util-concurrent instead of concurrent.
This will allow for easier switch to full JDK 5 later (and this is the library used
by retrotranslator, btw).

On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

Does not look like ClockDaemon is going to ever make it into java.util.concurrent (or the backport).  I've also found several sources online that suggest that "Doug Lea says that it replaces its ClockDaemon class.", though I have not actually found anywhere that Doug actually says that.

It also looks like ClockDaemon was added way back before there was java.util.Timer in the JDK... and I'm guessing that since they did not bring it into java.util.concurrent that it is probably recommended to just use java.util.Timer.

--jason

--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet