Re: What you get is what you want

Quartz wrote:
>>We could define an abstract class which all others threads specifics to TM could extends:
> 
> 
> Extension. Right. No thanks. Thread.currentThread() shouldn't even exist. 

Why?

> No more than
> Thread.sleep(). These only bring trouble and they have favorable workaround.
> I used currentThread() because I didn't know about ThreadLocal back then. Sleep should always be a
> wait with someone ready to notify() somewhere instead of having to interrupt.


I am agree with you that, in a design point of view and almost always, 
its better to use ThreadLocal than creating a specific thread class with 
specific attribute.  But, the fact is that using ThreadLocal is more 
slow than a downcast.  Because blocking_enqueue is a 
performance-critical operation, I prefer using a downcast.  Also, 
Sandstorm is already responsible to create and manage all threads, thus 
it don't seems a bad design solution.

Jean




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8