Dmitry, thank you for such a clearly stated test case :-)Sharath, the semantics of the interface are quite clear, and as it turns out some people lean on them. If you wish to implement concurrent queues that are compatible with JDK you need to consider this. In JCTools the decision was to clearly break from the contract with the 'relaxed' methods to avoid confusion. Where JCTools is not 100% compliant it is immediately broken(e.g. iterator is not implemented and throws an Unsupported exception, there's no confusion). I don't like the choice the JDK went with here, but it is made...
-- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scalable Synchronization Algorithms" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lock-free+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lock-free/1504784532.2130439.1496040449980%40mail.yahoo.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
