> It will be bad news for JMM if the Realtime Java spec (RTSJ) is adopted in its
> current form before JMM gets off the ground.
> According to your schedule, the JMM JSR won't be announced until a month or
> two *after* public review of RTSJ has closed. I urge everyone to checkout RTSJ
> while public review is still open.
Perhaps you (Joe) could write something that conveys a sense of the
concerns of the people on this mailing list? Since we are not
otherwise any kind of organized group, we cannot do much more than
I think there are only a few basic issues with respect to JMM:
* The special RawMemoryAccess mode must act like volatile.
(These are methods, not direct accesses, so might be tricky
to phrase this requirement just right.)
* The RTJ spec should clearly state that the standard memory rules
(i.e., ch17 or its revision) hold for all other special categories
of memory. (Although I wonder if any other special initialization
guarantees are intended here?)
* Asynch Event handlers must be written as if each triggering is invoked
in a different thread than any other. This forces memory safety in
the only case I can see that does not otherwise explicity require
Do you know of others?
-- Doug Lea, Computer Science Department, SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 USA email@example.com 315-341-2688 FAX:315-341-5424 http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/ ------------------------------- JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:24 EDT