geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why ClockDaemon instead of java.util.Timer?
Date Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:45:05 GMT
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