[GitHub] [commons-vfs] garydgregory commented on pull request #154: Rework SoftRefFilesCache locking
garydgregory commented on pull request #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154#issuecomment-789118595 I want to move this discussion to the dev mailing list. Please post there. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [commons-vfs] garydgregory commented on pull request #154: Rework SoftRefFilesCache locking
garydgregory commented on pull request #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154#issuecomment-788002328 Hi All, I plan on cutting a release candidate for VFS this week (maybe even tonight). If someone wants to review and merge this or not, go for it. Otherwise, it can go in the next release, RERO :-) This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [commons-vfs] garydgregory commented on pull request #154: Rework SoftRefFilesCache locking
garydgregory commented on pull request #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154#issuecomment-787963732 > > > Given that the Loom project will likely have issues with `synchronized` in its first iterations > > > > > > What kind of problems are caused by `synchronized`? I'm not a Java expert, I'm curious, I thought that was the first-class synchronization feature that always "just works", and you only need stuff like `ReentrantLock` when you need special features. > > It is today, but the ongoing Loom project aims at adding new lightweight thread scheduling features for which the low-level monitor that `synchronized` takes is harder to interact with (again: in the first iterations, it'll eventually work ok). See https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/loom/Main for more, search for "synchronized". > > Therefore the Java libraries that aim to be Loom-friendly try to currently avoid `synchronized` blocks. Here's an example from the PostgreSQL JDBC driver: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc#1951](https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/1951) I do not think that "Loom-friendliness" is a goal in this component; we are, after all, still on Java 8. Java 11 is not even running "everywhere" yet, for example, on i/Series. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [commons-vfs] garydgregory commented on pull request #154: Rework SoftRefFilesCache locking
garydgregory commented on pull request #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154#issuecomment-774674297 I do not think we should twist ourselves into a pretzel over project Loom now. It's way too soon. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [commons-vfs] garydgregory commented on pull request #154: Rework SoftRefFilesCache locking
garydgregory commented on pull request #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154#issuecomment-762399913 @ecki , @rgoers, any thoughts? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
