> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nelson Minar)
> Technically, there is only one semantic for Threads in Java. In theory
> Java is a completely specified runtime, ...
Not at all! Java is _NOT_ completely specified. In fact, some things,
such as many details of threading, are explicitly _un_specifie
> Michael Thome writes:
Michael> Obligatory Java-Linux subject: What I'd *really* like
Michael> (for my own application) is for VMs to support a hybrid
Michael> of green and native threads - e.g. a limited pool of
Michael> natives running a larger set of greens. Native threads
> "Nelson" == Nelson Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (b) kernel thread semantics are different from user thread semantics,
> In practice, Java threads are woefully underspecified, and so it's
> nearly impossible to write correct multithreaded Java.
I'd say it is "difficult to write cor
> In practice, Java threads are woefully underspecified, and so it's
> nearly impossible to write correct multithreaded Java. This is the
> most serious deficiency in Java. I agree, kernel threads (with
> preemption and real priority scheduling) is the right way to go, and
> I'm glad to see that
