On 13/Oct/2009 19:59, Jesse Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nathan Beyer nbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, the synchronization probably isn't appropriate on any of the
accessor/mutators - the granularity isn't correct. The locking
probably needs to encompass the entire method
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/Oct/2009 19:59, Jesse Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nathan Beyer nbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, the synchronization probably isn't appropriate on any of the
accessor/mutators - the granularity
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nathan Beyer nbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, the synchronization probably isn't appropriate on any of the
accessor/mutators - the granularity isn't correct. The locking
probably needs to encompass the entire method on DatagramSocket while
working on a
With a simple getting being synchronized like this, I assume it is to
get the memory consistency on that field?
Looking at DatagramPacket, all of the methods are synchronized.
Wouldn't it be better to make these fields volatile, rather than
requiring the setters and getters to acquire the lock as
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Tim Ellison t.p.elli...@gmail.com wrote:
With a simple getting being synchronized like this, I assume it is to
get the memory consistency on that field?
Yep. There were a two or three fields.
Looking at DatagramPacket, all of the methods are synchronized.
