Hi, On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 15:44, Jeff Sturm wrote: > On 15 Feb 2002, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > When javadoc puts a synchronized in the javadoc you can be sure that the > > thread will need to acquire the lock for that object. > > Not so. For instance, Java allows overriding a synchronized method with a > non-sychronized one. Relying on the information from javadoc could be > misleading. Jikes. You (and Artur) are right and I was wrong. I have been relying on this information. Hmmmm. Time to review all my code again... :}
> Also, the inverse doesn't apply: a method not identified as synchronized > in javadoc may synchronize "this" anyway. That is true, but as Artur pointed out this should be in the documentation. > For these reasons, I believe "synchornized" is part of a method's > implementation but not its interface, and I am glad javadoc ignores it. I have to agree now. Lets hope that the synchronization behaviour (and thread safety) of methods is always described correctly in the documentation... Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
