>From: Matthew Strayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>The situation you describe does not cause deadlock because the wait()
>call in thread
>2 releases the synchronized lock.
Ahh - didn't realise that! It's not been in any docs I've read before. Now,
i've found it buried now in 4 lines of page 184 of Concurrent programming in
Java.
>The only way I can think of to alleviate this problem is use different
>synchronization primitives. Unfortunately, Java
>doesn't have them. And all libraries that simulate these use
>synchronization!
heheheh - hooray for Java :-)
>Now, maybe someone here could hack some byte code
>(does Java have a set-and-test instruction??) and
>produce them... ;-)
Trouble is with a test and set is it atomic? I would imagine why the lack of
better sync options and test & set options plus say a version of interlocked
increment is perhaps due to the 'lowest common denominator' basis of java.
Regards
Ned
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
