At 11:49 AM 21/04/2004 -0400, Bill Pugh wrote:
> * synchronizing on an object counts as an active use of
> the object that keeps it from being finalized, if
> the finalizer may invoke synchronization on the object
I'm unhappy about the caveat "if the finalizer make invoke synchronization
on the object."
I understand that the motivation is to maximise the possibilities of
removing redundant synchronization, but the caveat impinges on reachability
for the purposes of the reference classes WeakReference, etc.
I've raises the issue of these classes in the context of finalization
discussions before, but my comments have been systematically ignored.
It might be felt that his matter is outside the scope of a new Java memory
model, but I'm not really sure how finalization got in either.
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:01:05 EDT