> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Andrey Chernyshev wrote: > > So if we built the full code path, would the picture be like: > > > > j.u.concurrent.atomic.AtomicXXXX // > > | // untouched JSR 166 > > \/ // > > Unsafe // > > | > > \/ > > Objects // What we propose as Unsafe replacement > > to JSR > > | > > \/ > > accessors in kernel > > > > or, it will be something different? > > Actually I was thinking more like this: > > j.u.concurrent.atomic.AtomicXXXX > | > \/ > Unsafe > +-------+-------+ > | | > \/ \/ > ObjectAccessor AtomicAccessor (in kernel) > > i.e. we are free to implement the Unsafe operations in terms of multiple > types in harmony. Any sensible name is fine by me.
This is what I had in mind as well. Though, ObjectAccessor and AtomicAccessor would be merged into one interface (more on this in the other thread). -Nathan > > <snip> > > > From the usability point of view, the most convenient way to split API > > could be according to the functionality exposed, rather than the > > underlying implementation specifics. > > True, but IMHO its not much of a usability inconvenience to use two > types, and that allows us to separate the VM-specific behavior into a > different type, so it can be put into the kernel module. Unlike Thread, > Class, etc. there is no state in accessor instances, so I don't see an > advantage for VMs to define those types outright. > > If you feel strongly otherwise then it simply means there is more for > the VM writer to do. > > > For accessors we currently have two separate classes, one for objects > > and one for arrays. We may complement them both with volatile and > > atomic type of access. The other option could be to put volatile and > > atomic access into a separate class, as it was suggested. May be it > > can be named "AtomicAccessor"? Either "Objects" or "Atomics" class > > name doesn't seem to align nicely with the other existing > > "XXXAccessors". > > Can you implement Unsafe in terms of these? How can you go from a field > offset (in Unsafe API) to a field id (in accessor API)? > > Regards, > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
