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 07:52:08 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message