On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Greg Thomas <greg.d.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Here? http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-February/003114.html Gary > > > 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 > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
