He asked about Java.
Please don't attempt to start another stupid
language war, especially in such an unhelpful way.
Why?
Also, if two methods are "totally unrelated to each other" then you
don't need any synchronization at all.
The single best, most effective way to optimize concurrent code is not
to share data. The second-best way is to make shared-data immutable
(read-only).
He asked in comp.lang.java.programmer; clearly he's developing on the JVM
using Java; but is he *solely* using Java? Java can be extended with
other JVM languages for added flexibility.
OK
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Java, Lew?
I'm sorry?
Your classic erroneous presupposition that I'm trying to start a language
war. What does it have to do with Java?
It is well known that shorter critical sections and finer lock
granularity can increase concurrency, Lew.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They may still need
synchronization to prevent the simultaneous use of a) the SAME one by two
different threads on the same object or b) one of them and some third
method on the same object. But you may want an explicit lock object
instead of the default effects of declaring the methods synchronized.
Clojure can help a lot with the latter.
You have made a classic erroneous presupposition that I think that
you're trying to start a language war.
I asked you not to do so; I didn't suggest that you already had done
so.
Cast out the beam in thine own eye, mo'fu'.
Plonk,
schmuck.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.