Waitable* classes for backport or 1.5?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Waitable* classes for backport or 1.5?

Holger Hoffstätte-2

Hi,

has anybody forward-ported the Waitable{Boolean/Byte..} classes from the
original edu.oswego package to either backport or 1.5 proper? I could need
them for forward-backporting a project :) since are quite handy. Porting
them as subclasses of AtomicBoolean etc. should not be too difficult but I
wanted to ping here first - no need to duplicate efforts..

Thanks,
Holger


_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
[hidden email]
http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Waitable* classes for backport or 1.5?

Dawid Kurzyniec
Holger Hoffstaette wrote:

>Hi,
>
>has anybody forward-ported the Waitable{Boolean/Byte..} classes from the
>original edu.oswego package to either backport or 1.5 proper? I could need
>them for forward-backporting a project :) since are quite handy. Porting
>them as subclasses of AtomicBoolean etc. should not be too difficult but I
>wanted to ping here first - no need to duplicate efforts..
>
>
>  
>
Not me :)
Regards,
Dawid Kurzyniec

_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
[hidden email]
http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Waitable* classes for backport or 1.5?

Holger Hoffstätte-2
In reply to this post by Holger Hoffstätte-2
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:09:20 +0200, Holger Hoffstaette wrote:

> has anybody forward-ported the Waitable{Boolean/Byte..} classes from the
> original edu.oswego package to either backport or 1.5 proper? I could need

Well just for the record - I first wrote a junit test case against
edu.oswego.WaitableBoolean, wrote the backport implementation (which needs
to be in a different inheritance hierarchy because some Atomic* methods
are final, grr!) by wrapping an AtomicBoolean, and after successfully
switching the test over it works just fine in the old codebase.
No rocket science..if someone needs the code drop me a line.

Holger


_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
[hidden email]
http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest