On 12/10/2013 01:15 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Perhaps Doug could provide history on the intent of ConcurrentMap.
See the package-level docs in java.util.concurrent that compare
Hashtable to ConcurrentMap, implying that it might not be a good idea
to now retrospectively declare Hashtable as a C
On Dec 10 2013, at 01:06 , Paul Sandoz wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:14 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... it was time that I studied Map.forEach I see you convert to
>> ISE to CME ...
>>
>> (Synchronized maps (like Hashtable) do not implement ConcurrentMap. Is
>> that a bug?)
>>
On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:14 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> Hmmm... it was time that I studied Map.forEach I see you convert to
> ISE to CME ...
>
> (Synchronized maps (like Hashtable) do not implement ConcurrentMap. Is
> that a bug?)
>
> Imagine a third party implementation of a synchronized
On Dec 9 2013, at 17:50 , Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Current ConcurrentMap.forEach
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrent/dist/docs/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentMap.html#replaceAll-java.util.function.BiFunction-
> has two different "specs" for the default method:
>
> Implementation Requiremen
