Torsten -
Any objections to receiving test cases using junit?
phil.
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.whirlycott.com/phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED
benefit does the regex approach provide? Callflow analyses seems
like it could be messy. And I think just tagging the rewritten class
with this interface is pretty transparent, no?
phil.
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
);
+}
+
+public String toString() {
+return + global + . + local;
}
}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Whirlycott
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Well, the point is that the file writing code is
temporary anyway. I should go away in the near future.
That's why fixing it is not that important.
Yes, I was going to ask about that one... can you let me in on your
plans for this? I agree that it should go away, but I
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Exactly - most books and documentation about resource exclusion about
this make it abundantly clear that synchronized methods shouldn't call
each other for this very reason.
Thanks for adding that point.
phil.
Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:09:14 -0500, WHIRLYCOTT [EMAIL
will
backup the readlock but if you only have readlocks they can all happen
at once.
Normally though its not too big a deal since gets() on a hashtable are
O(1)
Kevin
--
Whirlycott
Philip Jacob
There's also the original version here:
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.html
What does the backport offer that the original util.concurrent lib
doesn't offer?
phil.
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
WHIRLYCOTT wrote:
I guess this thread should end soon, but while
