DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23159>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23159 [collections][PATCH] makes code easier to understand ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-14 21:39 ------- I am interested in Stephen's comments on both of these changes. I agree that the current implementation forces lock == this, but Stephen may have had something elso in mind when he designed this class and its superclasses. I also agree that it is not obvious why add should notify while addAll notifies all. In any case, this should be documented. I will add test cases demonstrating current behavior when multiple threads are waiting in each case and update the javadoc. I would like to wait for Stephen's comments before applying the patch, however, as the notify -> notifyAll change to the add method effectively changes the contract. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
