On 06 June 2012 21:20:02 +0200 Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://tapestryjava.blogspot.com/2012/06/synchronized-considered-harmful.html
I am curious is there a reason to not use 'double-checked locking' pattern? I know that it was broken in Java 1.4 and earlier, but Java Memory Model was changed (JSR-133) for Java 5.0 to accommodate that pattern. Of course, you need to use 'volatile' field, but AFAIK it does not impose any significant penalty (especially for reads) on most platforms including most x86 and emt64. Am I missing something?
Cezary --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
