Richard Liang wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > IMHO, if the spec does not require a class thread-safe explicitly, we > may regard the class as thread-unsafe. Correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
I agree -- you may assume unsafe unless spec'd otherwise. Regards, Tim > Andrew Zhang wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> I noticed there are several FIXMEs in MappedByteBufferAdapter.java, which >> are related to synchronization issue. >> >> Following FIXME is for getChar() method: >> >> // FIXME Need synchronization as far as the update of this.position is >> concerned of the following methods? Spec does not say whether >> MappedByteBuffer is thread safe. It is the decision we should make. >> >> I read through MappedByteBuffer javadoc, and didn't find any description >> about concurrent & synchronization. The spec on MappedByteBuffer >> emphasizes >> "All or part of a mapped byte buffer may become inaccessible at any >> time", >> and in the end, it mentions "Mapped byte buffers otherwise behave no >> differently than ordinary direct byte buffers." >> >> Spec doesn't mention any synchronization issues on direct byte buffers >> either. Therefore, in my opnion, only synchronizing for >> MappedByteBuffer is >> unnecessary. >> >> Any comments? or may I miss something? Thanks! >> >> Best regards, >> >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
