I appreciate that with JavaScript interpreters executing in one thread
there will never be any *true* concurrency. However it seems perfectly
possible for concurrency issues to arise with the way that
asynchronous callbacks are used A simple example is if I am
continuously checking the value of a
There is no preemption. The events are polled when the thread is idle
and in your example the thread is not idle because is stuck in your
endless and freezing cycle.
On Sunday, September 19, 2010, Johannes Lehmann
johannes.lehma...@googlemail.com wrote:
I appreciate that with JavaScript
Hi,
As Stefano wrote...ur loop will never end..:) and no other cycle can be
executed.
This is a concurrency topic and threading, try to create in java(or any
other language)
a thread with while(true) do something, and try to confine some other
thread(some other work) to be done on this thread...
I don't jnow if this is what you are searching but
http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/ConcurrentModificationException.html
is in the jre emulation
http://code.google.com/intl/es-CL/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/RefJreEmulation.html
On 19 sep, 10:53, Blagoja Chavkoski
Hi,
here is something that has been puzzeling me (and that may just be
because I have misunderstood something trivial): I have read that
JavaScript interpreters are usually single threaded. A page on
supported language features seems to imply that for this reason, GWT
doesn't not honor the
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, Johannes Lehmann
johannes.lehma...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
here is something that has been puzzeling me (and that may just be
because I have misunderstood something trivial): I have read that
JavaScript interpreters are usually single threaded. A page on
supported
OK, that is basically what I assumed. This however seems to create
concurrency issues, which the synchronized keyword was designed to
address. Without any language support such as semaphores or mutexes
and without any guarantees regarding preemption, how could I solve a
problem such as the above?
On Sep 17, 4:13 pm, Johannes Lehmann
johannes.lehma...@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, that is basically what I assumed. This however seems to create
concurrency issues, which the synchronized keyword was designed to
address. Without any language support such as semaphores or mutexes
and without
