Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 23967 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 11:40:04 -0000 Received: from lx.quiotix.com (199.164.185.7) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 11:40:04 -0000 Received: (from brian@localhost) by lx.quiotix.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08454 for tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:40:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:40:04 -0800 From: Brian Goetz To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Thread-safety Message-ID: <20010130034004.A8449@lx.quiotix.com> References: <3A7688B7.C0D41738@bvdep.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3A7688B7.C0D41738@bvdep.com>; from lvl@bvdep.com on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:26:15AM +0100 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > There are IMHO two reasons why these statements may be 'executed' out of > order: Good explanation. > AFAIK the only mechanism the Java language provides to ensure this is > the use of synchronized blocks. One could also consider the volatile keyword in this category. But few JVMs implement volatile according to spec...