Hi Olegm > Looks fine for me.
Cool. I take it, I have to wait for another reviewer, or can I push it now? What are the exact rules for this? /Roman > > Oleg. > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Roman Kennke <ro...@kennke.org> wrote: > > Hi Oleg, > > > >> >> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd > >> >> only allow > >> >> set this field once. > >> > > >> > Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the > >> > same URL. > >> > >> As far as I can see you add synchronization only to setter, but you > >> should also add > >> synchronization when you read this field. So you should either make > >> access field > >> volatile, or add synchronized getter and use it to get the field. > > > > Duh, you are right. I should better think twice before I send new > > patch :-). Now it should be correct, what do you think? > > > > Webrev still here: http://kennke.org/~roman/componentaccess/webrev/ > > > > /Roman > > > > -- > > http://kennke.org/blog/ > > -- http://kennke.org/blog/
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
