RE: JavaMemoryModel: General rules

From: Sarita Adve (
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 01:28:02 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of

> Concerning the semantics, I think most of the disagreement is at a
> high level--should we make stronger or weaker guarantees, and why--and
> depends on our motivation for providing those guarantees. For
> example, I didn't realize that incorrectly synchronized code is always
> considered a mistake, so I wanted guarantees to help people write
> correct but incorrectly synchronized code. Now that I've been
> disabused of that idea, I don't see much motivation to provide any
> more guarantees than are necessary to ensure safety. Obviously,
> others, including you, disagree. (I do agree, however, that it is
> worthwhile to add guarantees that limit the damage a synchronization
> error can have on other parts of a program. I'm just unconvinced that
> most of the guarantees being discussed will significantly simplify the
> task, particularly because I don't think most people will understand
> those guarantees.)

My sentiments exactly.


JavaMemoryModel mailing list -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:48 EDT