Re: [DISCUSS] use backport-concurrent instead of repackaged concurrent classes

[Craig L Russell]

+1 and there is still good reason to support 1.4

Craig

On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

+1 (but I'd rather just drop 1.4 support)

-dain

On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

Hi,


run across the need for a ReentrantReadWriteLock, akin to what is in
Java 5's java.util.concurrent package, Emory University's
edu.emory.mathcs.backport package, and Doug Lea's EDU.oswego.cs.dl
package.

Currently, OpenJPA has repackaged copies of some of the code from
EDU.oswego.cs.dl, but not everything. I'd like to get rid of the
repackaged copies, and move to the versions in
edu.emory.mathcs.backport. According to Doug Lea's website, the
backport classes are preferable to the EDU.oswego.cs.dl classes at
this point.


of the concurrent implementation, and only impacts those classes that
we are already directly repackaging.

Thoughts?

-Patrick

--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

In the process of doing some concurrency-related work on OpenJPA, I've This change is independent of future changes to allow for pluggability

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature