Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7541 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2006 07:52:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Aug 2006 07:52:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 11328 invoked by uid 500); 28 Aug 2006 07:52:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 11283 invoked by uid 500); 28 Aug 2006 07:52:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 11270 invoked by uid 99); 28 Aug 2006 07:52:47 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:47 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jason.dillon@gmail.com designates 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.166.178] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (64.233.166.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:46 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x66so6361151pye for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer:sender; b=jHQOE6DFK7ruTyYsZYf63VjaSgd3Cde7jHP9F8DXeWpL58PAd7ko4xaEnTNu5AQ6iQXA7Jc6emJK7wYgVvQJMfWtNLTsAZIoLfS2+Sjgnyh9EJXWp4Ci0qlTovwnl9dqBg9/gUKu3DCH8aRbl7H4aRTtQYMfncPFeC5++LHP618= Received: by 10.35.8.1 with SMTP id l1mr11881440pyi; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ( [24.7.69.241]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id a75sm6714411pyf.2006.08.28.00.52.24; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: <39BBB9D6-844B-4244-AE9B-E7F3F9018EA4@planet57.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-27-203185843 Message-Id: From: Jason Dillon Subject: Re: Why ClockDaemon instead of java.util.Timer? Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:08 -0700 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: Jason Dillon X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --Apple-Mail-27-203185843 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed 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 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 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 --Apple-Mail-27-203185843 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 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).=A0 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

= --Apple-Mail-27-203185843--