No problem, don't beat yourself up about it.
----- Original message -----
>
> Peter - I apologize. I had meant to keep my suggestion to cool down
> off-list, but it appears that I failed to remove dev@river.apache.org
> from the recipients when I replied.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg.
>
> On Dec 21, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I think the real problem is some people haven't been reading up on
> > concurrency and are insufficiently informed to be able to properly
> > discuss the issue.
> >
> > When I don't know something, I either ask someone who does, or I keep
> > my mouth shut so as not to look like a fool.
> >
> > It's more a case of, if you behave like a fool long enough to make it
> > frustrating, that's exactly how you'll be treated.
> >
> > Sadly it's by people who should know better, who while they may lack
> > an understanding of the JMM are still very skilled programmers, that's
> > what makes it frustrating.
> >
> > Final fields are made visible after construction completes, so when
> > other threads receive a copy of the object in an unconstructed state,
> > like they do during export in a constructor, then those threads can
> > continue to see the incomplete object, rather than the fully
> > constructed one.
> >
> > See for yourselves, look at all the final fields in Mercury, then
> > realise that it's reference escaped during construction. The other
> > services are also guilty.
> >
> > That also means that all the remote method invocations wrapped up as
> > runnable tasks and executed on Mercury's methods in an executor pool
> > will have also seen parts of Mercury in a partially constructed state.
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/river/jtsk/skunk/qa_refactor/trunk/src/com/sun/jini/mercury/MailboxImpl.java?r1=545310&r2=1552606
> >
> > If I haven't convinced you, read up, spend some time on the
> > concurrency interest mail list or ask someone you trust who does know.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter.
> >
> > On 21/12/2013 11:10 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> > > (off-list)
> > >
> > > Peter:
> > >
> > > You’re sounding unprofessional, and you’re missing the fact that
> > > people are giving reasonable and well-thought-out feedback. You
> > > seem to be taking the conversation personally. Perhaps you should
> > > take a few hours off the list and cool down. Things will still be
> > > here when you’ve regained composure.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Greg.
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:28 PM, Peter<j...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You just did.
> > > >
> > > > The blue pill.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer the truth, it's easier in the long run.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to cast your vote.
> > > >
> > > > Peter.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original message -----
> > > > > Peter,
> > > > >
> > > > > There's so many things wrong in there, I'm not even going to
> > > > > dignify this with a response.
> >
>
