.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21 July 2016 at 16:30, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The more I think about this the more I dislike it. This requires
>>&
s" for the pattern:
>>
>> try (final AutoCloseableLock l = LOCK.lock()) {
>> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>> }
>>
>> I could rename lock() to doLock() and a void lock() but that seems a bit
>> confusing to have both metho
>> try (final AutoCloseableLock l = LOCK.lock()) {
>> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>> }
>>
>> I could rename lock() to doLock() and a void lock() but that seems a bit
>> confusing to have both methods.
>>
>> This is in
;
>> I could rename lock() to doLock() and a void lock() but that seems a bit
>> confusing to have both methods.
>>
>> This is in the branch AutoCloseableLock which I'd like to merge.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM,
atisfy
>>>>>>> the compiler. It defeats the work Remko has been doing to make the code
>>>>>>> garbage free as it is explicitly creating objects it doesn’t even use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>
;>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AutoCloseableLock canno
t;>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> AutoCloseableLock cannot implement
gt;> return MAP.containsKey(name);
>>> }
>>>
>>> I could rename lock() to doLock() and a void lock() but that seems a bit
>>> confusing to have both methods.
>>>
>>> This is in the branch AutoCloseableLock which I'd
gt; confusing to have both methods.
>>
>> This is in the branch AutoCloseableLock which I'd like to merge.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:boa...@gmail.com&g
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>
>>>> AutoCloseableLock cannot implement Lock because lock() is void and I
>>>> count on AutoCloseableLock#lock() returning "this" for the pattern:
>>>>
>>>> try (final AutoCloseableLock l = LOCK
gt;>> confusing to have both methods.
>>>
>>> This is in the branch AutoCloseableLock which I'd like to merge.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
s a bit
>> confusing to have both methods.
>>
>> This is in the branch AutoCloseableLock which I'd like to merge.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>&
t;> I kinda imagined AutoCloseableLock to implement both AutoCloseable and
>> Lock.
>>
>> ------ Forwarded message --
>> From: <ggreg...@apache.org>
>> Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
>> Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseable
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: <ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@apache.org>>
> Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
> Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseableLock.
> To: comm...@logging.apache.org <mailto:comm...@logging.a
loseable and
> Lock.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: <ggreg...@apache.org>
> Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
> Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseableLock.
> To: comm...@logging.apache.org
>
>
> Repository: logging-log4j2
> U
utoCloseable and
>> Lock.
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: <ggreg...@apache.org>
>> Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
>> Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseableLock.
>> To: comm...@logging.apache.org
>>
>&g
boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I kinda imagined AutoCloseableLock to implement both AutoCloseable and
> Lock.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: <ggreg...@apache.org>
> Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
> Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseableLock.
I kinda imagined AutoCloseableLock to implement both AutoCloseable and Lock.
-- Forwarded message --
From: <ggreg...@apache.org>
Date: 24 June 2016 at 03:50
Subject: [1/4] logging-log4j2 git commit: Add AutoCloseableLock.
To: comm...@logging.apache.org
Repository: logging-
18 matches
Mail list logo
