Correction, ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception.
Eitherway,
That should work much better. That protects against to much
synchronization at the cost of possibly not distributing evenly, but
that risk is so small, and not a big deal.
At least you never goes out of index here.
Q
On 6/23/08, Tatu Saloranta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/23/08, Quintin Beukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > One can either modify the the method to either
> > (1) Implement a priority queue, which will give a perfect
> > distribution.
> > (2) Modify the method to do this:
> > int i;
> > synchronized (this)
> > {
> > int i = this.currentWorker++ % this.workerCount;
> > if (i == 0) this.currentWorker = 1;
>
>
> How about rather:
>
> if (++currentWorker < 0) { // overflow
> currentWorker = 0;
> }
> i = currentWorker % workerCount;
>
> if goal is to protect against overflow (which I thought was the goal);
> or. I don't think our code helps against overflow itself.
> Or if one just wants to iterate over workers:
>
> if (++currentWorker >= workerCount) {
> currentWorker = 0;
> }
> i = currentWorker % workerCount;
>
> I doubt any of these really would make that much difference (including the
> original code), but if one wants to be pedantic... :-)
>
>
> -+ Tatu +-
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Quintin Beukes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
