On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, James Strachan wrote:
> From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It seems to me that SynchronizedQueue might fit better into a package of
> > classes specifically focused on communicating between threads in a
> > multi-thread application. One such set of classes is my
> > "threading" proposal in the sandbox. Another possible source was
> > suggested on the list today (the "util.concurrent" thread).
> >
> > What would you think about focusing the "collections" package on things
> > that are independent of multi-thread communication assumptions, and having
> > a separate Commons package ("threading" or "multithread" or whatever) that
> > is specifically focused on that need?
>
> I think thats a good idea, yes.
>
> The SynchronizedQueue would probably be better being either submitted to the
> "threading" sandbox or quietly replaced by something else that's already in
> there.
>
> A quick peek in the threading sandbox and it looks like the existing
> LIFOQueue / FIFOQueue would probably do just fine, though I'd better take a
> look at the source code to be sure. Though I'd prefer a couple of minor
> changes ;-)
>
By all means, suggest away!
> * use size() method rather than getCount() to be more Java 2
> collections-like
>
Sounds good. The original classes were written pre-Java2, so now would be
a good time to update the names (and make any other changes that improve
their integration with the Java2 collections classes as appropriate).
> * add a new dequeueNoWait() method that doesn't block and returns null if
> there is no object available.
>
Sounds good as well.
> James
>
Craig
