On 7/04/2018 3:11 AM, Tony Printezis wrote:
—————
Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprinte...@twitter.com
On April 6, 2018 at 12:16:10 PM, David Lloyd (david.ll...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Tony Printezis <tprinte...@twitter.com>
wrote:
ThreadLocal clearing
Could you clarify what you mean by ThreadLocal clearing?
I mean calling ThreadLocal#remove().
I see. So, anyone who subclasses ThreadLocal can override remove(). And if
remove() is called by Thread::exit, it can be used as an exit hook. (David
Holmes, if this is what you meant in your e-mail: apologies; I
misunderstood.)
Absolutely! ... Well kind of ... okay actually no, I wasn't thinking at
that level of detail yet. ;-)
Cheers,
David H.
I like the suggestion to add an overridable exit() method to ThreadLocal.
If
you want to avoid calling user code by Thread::exit, would adding
ThreadLocals (which are tagged appropriately) to a queue for later
processing a better approach (similar to the mechanism used for
References /
ReferencesQueues)? The user can of course create a memory leak by not
polling the queue frequently enough. But, that’s also the case for
References. And at least user code cannot block Thread::exit.
It's more complexity, and at some point you have to ask: is it better
to block thread A or thread B? At least blocking thread A is somewhat
expected.
I agree re: it’d add complexity. #simplify :-)
Tony
