Hello, I do agree that we don’t need to worry about removing synchronized for the purpose of beeing compatible with early versions of Loom (at least not for all commons projects). This is especially true if the code gets more ugly, might have subtle behavior changes or similar.
However I think in the context of the PR it looks like the existing code did not use synchronize, so it would be good to not change it to do so (especially not if that’s not needed for the change in question!). I did not follow the changes completely, so I am not sure what’s proposed. Can we we maybe squash it at minimize the changes to fix the actual Bug (if there is one, since I think we still have no specification on concurrency and locking properties of VFS) and keep them Loom support discussion separate from the release? Gruss Bernd -- http://bernd.eckenfels.net ________________________________ Von: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:31:01 PM An: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Betreff: [VFS] Consensus needed for https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154 I want to move the discussion from the PR to this mailing list, https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/154 TY, Gary
