commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ja...@carmanconsulting.com
Subject Re: [collections] deprecate CursorableLinkedList?
Date Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:11:14 GMT
Nevermind, RTFM.  Sorry, folks.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <james@carmanconsulting.com>
To: <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [collections] deprecate CursorableLinkedList?


> If I append something asynchronously to the end of the list while a Cursor
> is open, will the cursor pick that up?  Or, does a cursor merely take a
> snap-shot of the underlying list and iterate over whatever is there
> currently?  Just curious.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <rwaldhoff@apache.org>
> To: <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:03 PM
> Subject: [collections] deprecate CursorableLinkedList?
>
>
> > If there are no complaints, I'd like to deprecate CursorableLinkedList
for
> > the 3.0 collections release, to be removed in the 4.0 release.
> >
> > CursorableLinkedList provides a List implementation that supports a type
> > of Iterator (called a Cursor) that isn't bothered by concurrent
> > modifications--you can safely add or remove items before or after the
> > current location of the cursor and the cursor will simply see the
current
> > status of the list when it gets there.
> >
> > While this functionality works fine, it's too complicated by half, and
> > there are bugs in other areas of the interface (well, the only bug I'm
> > aware of is that it isn't really Serializable, despite what the
interface
> > claims.)
> >
> > I suspect that commons-pool is the only consumer of this class, where it
> > is used to walk through the set of pooled objects while borrowObject or
> > returnObjct calls may asynchronously modify the underlying list.  By
> > deprecating (and eventually removing) this class, we could either move
> > CursorableLinkedList over to pool, or (my preference) replace the
> > CursorableLinkedList with a significantly simpler but slightly less
> > predictable approach (like iterating via
list.get(counter++%list.size()),
> > but that's a topic for another thread.
> >
> > Contrariwise, if we'd like to keep CursorableLinkedList, we should
either
> > fix the Serialization or remove the "implements Serializable" part of
the
> > class declaration.
> >
> > - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message