At 04:08 PM 9/23/2004 -0700, you wrote:
--- Elias Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel a bit frustrated because I've been bitten in the ass a few
> times encountering this "contrived" problem and I haven't been
> taken very seriously pointing this out. As I have tried to explain,
> this is som
--- Elias Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel a bit frustrated because I've been bitten in the ass a few
> times encountering this "contrived" problem and I haven't been
> taken very seriously pointing this out. As I have tried to explain,
> this is something that has happened before on serve
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 01:59, Ceki GÃlcà wrote:
> Some would say heavy-handed, others would say simple and robust. Given
> the history of this discussion (see bug report 24159), I have a strong
> bias against modifying the existing synchronization code in
> AppenderSkeleton. The problem in 24159 i
At 10:23 PM 9/17/2004, Elias Ross wrote:
The java.io.Writer classes are synchronized internally. There is a lock
internally, so the only reason to lock externally is to synchronize
state on another operation. Say, if you do w.write(X); w.write(Y);
Agreed.
If you look at the way Layouts are des
