Re: [picocontainer-dev] Re: [picocontainer-scm] [3768] java/2.x/trunk/pico/container/src/test/org/picocontainer/behaviors: reentrant lock stuff - alternative to synchronized

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Jörg mentioned it some months back. Suggesting we could switch to  
> it from synchronized.  The IBM article suggests its better for now,  
> but not forever.
>
> Rekindling that discussion.
>
> Should we roll this into Caching or is it best to have things  
> separate?

I'm not sure the use-case of having it separate.

And if it is separate, even less sure of the value of having two  
implementations of the same thing. Sounds like it'll be begging for  
confusion from users.

-pete

-- 
(peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi