* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-17 18:58:07]: > Well we are directly creating a new NodeUpdater object and then setting > the node's pointer to it in the set() method, with no synchronization? > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 07:56:13PM +0200, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-17 18:49:02]: > > > > > Synchronization? Might we end up making two NodeUpdater's? > > > > > > We are using callbacks, we have to be threadsafe btw I hardly see how > > that can cause a deadlock, so it won't hurt ;) > >
Ah, oh!, I thought you were asking me why I was synchronizing other methods ^-^ There is no good reason why not to synchronize there, indeed, my bad. NextGen$ _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
