On Monday 24 January 2011 02:34 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:49, Sahoo<[email protected]> wrote:
wait(0) causes a thread to wait until notified or interrupted, so why
why should any CPU cycles be wasted?
You're right, forget about that.
Secondly, can you also tell me why
you think it is artificial? Can't the instructions be reordered such
that the watcher threads start before initialization is complete?
Everything comes down to the fact that the ConfigAdmin support is
started before the other trackers are created and opened IIUC, so on
the JIRA issue, I suggested to simply move that part to the end of the
initialization, so that no DirectoryWatcher threads can be started
before everything is set up. I think that would solve the problem in
a cleaner way.
We can't rely on program order being same as the execution order in a
multi-threaded environment, can we? So, an explicit barrier is a much
better way to guarantee that watcher threads don't run before
initialization of fileinstall is complete.
Sahoo
