geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Why ClockDaemon instead of java.util.Timer?
Date Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:01:54 GMT
I understand now, thx :-)

BTW, looks like the port from ClockDaemon to Timer is very simple.   
The patch for server/trunk in GERONIMO-2354 does just that to avoid  
needing ClockDaemon.

--jason


On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> If we switch to backport-util-concurrent, the ClockDaemon  
> references will have to be removed.  What I meant is that the  
> ClockDaemon vs Timer problem is superseeded by the  concurrent vs  
> backport-util-concurrent problem.
> I brought retrotranslator in as an argument for the switch to  
> backport, nothing more.
> Sorry if it was not clear.
>
> On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon < jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> Ya, I know that :-P
>
> But what does that have to do with ClockDaemon and Timer?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:45 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> When weaving java.util.concurrent specific JDK 5 classes to JDK 1.4,
>> retrotranslator changes calls to the standard packages to calls to
>> the backport-util-concurrent package.
>>
>>
>> On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon < jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Retrostranslator uses Timer?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should switch to backport-util-concurrent instead of  
>>> concurrent.
>>> This will allow for easier switch to full JDK 5 later (and this  
>>> is the library used
>>> by retrotranslator, btw).
>>>
>>> On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon < jason@planet57.com > wrote:
>>> Does not look like ClockDaemon is going to ever make it into  
>>> java.util.concurrent (or the backport).  I've also found several  
>>> sources online that suggest that "Doug Lea says that it replaces  
>>> its ClockDaemon class.", though I have not actually found  
>>> anywhere that Doug actually says that.
>>>
>>> It also looks like ClockDaemon was added way back before there  
>>> was java.util.Timer in the JDK... and I'm guessing that since  
>>> they did not bring it into java.util.concurrent that it is  
>>> probably recommended to just use java.util.Timer.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet


Mime
View raw message