Re: More accurate wording for java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.sleep
David Holmes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jsr.166-concurrency |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Martin, I think we took the opportunity with TimeUnit to tighten up the loose specs from Thread.sleep. So I’m happy for TimeUnit to specify that <=0 is a no-op rather than some vague system level thing that may or may not actually have an observable affect. Cheers, David From: Concurrency-interest On Behalf Of Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 3:00 AM To: Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> Cc: concurrency-interest <[email protected]>; David Holmes <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] More accurate wording for java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.sleep I've been a steady advocate of "at least" semantics for methods that specify a duration, including sleep. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6313903 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6313903?filter=25118> Pavel, if you need to do something surely at 9am, set the alarm for 8am, not 9am! I agree that if Thread.sleep(0) is not really a no-op then TimeUnit.sleep(0) should do the same thing. Doug? _______________________________________________ Concurrency-interest mailing list [email protected] http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest