On 11/29/13 4:56 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 29/11/2013 10:08, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
However, removing or just moving the lock around might well introduce new
unknown issues - so it will need to be carefully anaIyzed, and I am
not sure
it can/should be attempted in a minor JDK release.
Yes, we have to be very careful as the logging code has a history of
biting the hand of those that try to improve it. For various reasons, it
seems there is a lot of code that has subtle dependencies on the
implementation, on the initialization in particular. In any case, you
are to be applauded for tackling the synchronization issues and it would
be a good project to re-examine all of this in JDK 9 to see how it would
be simplified.
On documenting the locking details in an @implNote (which seems to be
one of the suggestions here) then we also need to be careful as I think
we need some flexibility to change some of this going forward.
Yes - that's a two edged sword indeed. We certainly don't want to set
that in stone... On the other hand I empathizes with developers who
struggle to find out what they can - and can't do - when extending
j.u.l APIs...
Anyway, if usage of the 'synchronized' keyword never appears in
the Javadoc I guess that's for good reasons...
Thanks Alan,
-- daniel
-Alan
