Yes.
Nikolay/Artem/Andrey : Can you comment on this?
:)
geir
On Jan 12, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
Would it be possible to request Nikolay/Artem/Andrey to comment on
this,
since the reason does not seem obvious ?
On 1/12/07, Salikh Zakirov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>> This requirement is implicated by specification of
Thread.isAlive():
>>>
>>> Tests if this thread is alive. A thread is alive
>>> if it has been started and has not yet died.
>>>
>> I see no problem here: isAlive() must return true after the
start()
>> returned, so the thread state is consistent, and that's all.
>
> I've made an experiment with the patch below. I've removed wait/
notify
> mechanism and set isAlive in the start method right after
> VMThreadManager.start is called. So isAlive is set twice, on the
stack
> of parent thread, and on the stack of created thread before calling
> java. This seem to work just fine, all tests have passed,
eclipse works
> too.
>
> I wonder why all this wait/notify stuff was written at all. I
think we
> can get rid of it.
I've just noticed, that very similar code was there before committing
HARMONY-1648. Unfortunately, Nikolay did not describe implications of
synchronous thread start on stop() method.
--
Salikh
