Nevermind, RTFM. Sorry, folks. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [collections] deprecate CursorableLinkedList?
> If I append something asynchronously to the end of the list while a Cursor > is open, will the cursor pick that up? Or, does a cursor merely take a > snap-shot of the underlying list and iterate over whatever is there > currently? Just curious. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:03 PM > Subject: [collections] deprecate CursorableLinkedList? > > > > If there are no complaints, I'd like to deprecate CursorableLinkedList for > > the 3.0 collections release, to be removed in the 4.0 release. > > > > CursorableLinkedList provides a List implementation that supports a type > > of Iterator (called a Cursor) that isn't bothered by concurrent > > modifications--you can safely add or remove items before or after the > > current location of the cursor and the cursor will simply see the current > > status of the list when it gets there. > > > > While this functionality works fine, it's too complicated by half, and > > there are bugs in other areas of the interface (well, the only bug I'm > > aware of is that it isn't really Serializable, despite what the interface > > claims.) > > > > I suspect that commons-pool is the only consumer of this class, where it > > is used to walk through the set of pooled objects while borrowObject or > > returnObjct calls may asynchronously modify the underlying list. By > > deprecating (and eventually removing) this class, we could either move > > CursorableLinkedList over to pool, or (my preference) replace the > > CursorableLinkedList with a significantly simpler but slightly less > > predictable approach (like iterating via list.get(counter++%list.size()), > > but that's a topic for another thread. > > > > Contrariwise, if we'd like to keep CursorableLinkedList, we should either > > fix the Serialization or remove the "implements Serializable" part of the > > class declaration. > > > > - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
