But a simple
synchronized(object) {
if(!someConditation)
object.wait();
}
and
public boolean changeSomeCondition() {
synchronized(object) {
someCondition = true;
object.notifiyAll();
}
}
can be easy enough to warrant using a wait() statement.
But i agree, as soon as you start writing message consumer/producers,
latches, etc... then using the java.util.concurrent should be stronly
recommended :-)
On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ali Chousein wrote:
> > Thank you for the reply and the suggestion. Having two threads, one
> > waiting for the other was the best solution for my problem, but
> > apparently calling wait() in AsyncTask is not supported. Probably I'll
> > have multiple AsyncTasks, which don't wait for each other, but which
> > combine subsets of the functionality of the original A1 and A2
> > AsyncTasks.
>
> Or switch out from AsyncTasks to something else. For example, when I
> think "producer-consumer", I think LinkedBlockingQueue. Of course,
> LinkedBlockingQueue has always been my favorite of the concurrency
> classes, so I may tend to overuse it.
>
> > Until tonight I used to like the idea of AsyncTask. I don't understand
> > why the creators of Android cannot make such handy ideas more generic.
>
> Particularly when it comes to Java and threading, there is no single
> solution that fits every pattern. AsyncTask is designed for discrete,
> short-lived, independent operations. Outside of that, grab relevant
> classes out of java.util.concurrent, and use Handler or related methods
> to invoke logic on the main application thread.
>
> > @Mr Murphy: BTW, it could be a good idea to extend each chapter of
> > your Android books with a section of known issues. The books are
> > great, but they could be better if they also explain the limitations
> > to an extent.
>
> Uh, there aren't enough bytes on my hard drive for that. :-)
>
> More seriously, take your circumstance. As far as I'm concerned, the use
> of wait() by ordinary Java developers has been obsolete for about a
> decade. Once Doug Lea published his concurrency library -- what you now
> think of as java.util.concurrent -- no ordinary Java developer should be
> using low-level blocking protocols like wait(), IMHO. There are plenty
> of viable patterns already implemented in java.util.concurrent. And Mr.
> Lea is way smarter than the rest of us when it comes to Java threading.
> Hence, I would not be advising people in my book to avoid wait() in an
> AsyncTask, because I would not be advising people to use wait() in the
> first place.
>
> I am certainly interested in concrete suggestions for improving the
> books -- just head over to the [cw-android] Google Group and chime in. I
> am not sure how I can do a "known issues" section in every chapter, but
> I will give it some thought. Thanks for the feedback!
>
> --
> Mark Murphy (a Commons
> Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguyhttp://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy
>
> _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 3.1
> Available!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
