I''m sure I read somewhere that it was a deliberate choice not to make it, to
stop people using the very common pattern of creating the object in the try() -
which isn't much use for a lock.
Greg
--
Sent from my iPhone
> On 24 Jun 2016, at 00:45, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good idea!
> Maybe propose this for Java 9?
> Looks very reasonable to me.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 2016/06/24, at 8:32, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if anyone knows why Lock is not AutoCloseable.
>>
>> This:
>>
>> public static boolean hasManager(final String name) {
>> LOCK.lock();
>> try {
>> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>> } finally {
>> LOCK.unlock();
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Seems lame in comparison to:
>>
>> public static boolean hasManager(final String name) {
>> try (LOCK.lock()) {
>> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Which, due to syntax really would be:
>>
>> public static boolean hasManager(final String name) {
>> try (Object o = LOCK.lock()) {
>> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Just wonderin'...
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
