On Mar 25, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Bart Jacobs wrote:
> Doug Lea wrote:
>> Bart nicely expanded on my suggestion to use "synchronizes with"
>> instead here. I think we can adopt an equally rigorous usage that
>> will still also allow use of "happens before" in main spec, by
>> identifying "synchronizes-with" with the second clause of the HB
>> definition. As in:
>> I happens-before J if:
>> 1) I is before J in program order
>> 2) I synchronizes-with J
>> 3) I happens-before K happens-before J for some K
>> I synchronizes-with J if:
>> I is an unlock or volatile write, and J is a matching unlock or
>> volatile read that comes after I in the total order of
>> synchronization actions. [Or whatever exact wording JSR133
>> decides to go with here.]
> I find this surprising.
> - (Is "allowing the use of happens-before" a valid motivation for
> - With your definition, "synchronizes-with" is much less useful.
> Importantly, it cannot be used in documentation for class libraries. A
> client of a class library is interested in the actions of starting a
> method invocation and returning from a method invocation, and the
> edges between those actions; however, there are no synchronizes-with
> edges between such actions since these are not synchronization actions
> (unlocks, volatile writes, locks, volatile reads). Therefore, you need
> program order and you need transitivity.
The synchronizes-with interactions are the ones that need to be
The others can be inferred, and don't need to be documented.
My only concern about the use of "synchronizes-with" is that is sounds
symmetrical, and it is not.
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:01:01 EDT