gmane.comp.java.jsr.166-concurrency archive

401 archived articles, newest first (page 3 of 5). Latest articles →

Re: Counter-intuitive behavior of CompleteableFuture
Thu, 20 May 2021 14:49:34 +0200
Michał Górniewski via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17390
Re: Counter-intuitive behavior of CompleteableFuture
Thu, 20 May 2021 05:40:11 -0700
Benjamin Manes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17389
Counter-intuitive behavior of CompleteableFuture
Thu, 20 May 2021 14:28:52 +0200
Michał Górniewski via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17388
Re: Q.: supporting arbitrary DAGs in ForkJoinPool implementation
Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:23:38 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17387
Q.: supporting arbitrary DAGs in ForkJoinPool implementation
Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:25:07 -0400
Godmar Back via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17386
Theoretical race condition in ECJ enum switches
Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:55:14 +0100
Jonas Konrad via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17385
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 22:40:35 -0700
Valentin Kovalenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17384
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 22:35:48 -0700
Valentin Kovalenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17383
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 08:13:31 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17382
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 08:02:04 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17381
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:39:35 +0200
Peter Veentjer via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17380
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:37:25 +0200
Peter Veentjer via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17379
Re: is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Tue, 2 Feb 2021 18:38:07 -0700
Valentin Kovalenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17378
is HB consistent with SO for not otherwise related synchronization actions?
Tue, 2 Feb 2021 17:53:57 -0700
Valentin Kovalenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17377
Re: Phaser.arrive() memory co nsistency effects
Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:48:33 +0100 (CET)
Petr Janeček via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17376
Re: Phaser.arrive() memory consistency effects
Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:21:47 -0500
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17375
Re: Phaser.arrive() memory consistency effects
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:28:39 -0800
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17374
Phaser.arrive() memory consistency effects
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:05:17 +0100 (CET)
Petr Janeček via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17373
Re: CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:14:51 -0800
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17372
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:43:53 +0100
Peter Levart via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17371
Re: CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Tue, 5 Jan 2021 04:04:55 -0800
Benjamin Manes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17370
Re: CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Tue, 5 Jan 2021 06:57:26 -0500
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17369
Re: CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:17:54 +0000
Viktor Klang via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17368
Re: CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:28:38 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17367
CompletableFuture dependent ordering
Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:28:44 -0800
Benjamin Manes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17366
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:42:26 +0100
Thorsten via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17365
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:15:40 +0100
Volkan Yazıcı via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17364
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:45:15 +0100
Thorsten via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17363
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:34:38 +1000
David Holmes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17362
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:13 +0100
Volkan Yazıcı via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17361
Re: Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:44:21 -0800
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17360
Continuously re-spawning a stopped/killed thread
Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:24:46 +0100
Volkan Yazıcı via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17359
Re: Code snippets in documentation
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 20:48:15 +0000
Pavel Rappo via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17358
Re: Code snippets in documentation
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:40:26 -0500
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17357
Re: Code snippets in documentation
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:25:29 +0000
Pavel Rappo via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17356
Code snippets in documentation
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:48:15 +0000
Pavel Rappo via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17355
Re: ConcurrentLinkedDeque is non-linearizable
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 18:01:18 -0800
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17354
Re: ConcurrentLinkedDeque is non-linearizable
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:49:35 +0300
Nikita Koval via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17353
ConcurrentLinkedDeque is non-linearizable
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:43:35 +0300
Nikita Koval via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17352
Re: ForkJoinPool deadlock - bug?
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:44:10 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17351
ForkJoinPool deadlock - bug?
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:52:25 +0200
Matthias Schmalz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17350
Re: CompletableFuture.get() swallows thread interrupt flag on Java 11
Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:49:19 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17349
Re: CompletableFuture.get() swallows thread interrupt flag on Java 11
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:55:09 +1000
David Holmes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17348
Re: CompletableFuture.get() swallows thread interrupt flag on Java 11
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:02:18 +1000
Jens Wilke via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17347
Re: CompletableFuture.get() swallows thread interrupt flag on Java 11
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 07:23:41 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17346
CompletableFuture.get() swallows thread interrupt flag on Java 11
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:33:19 +1000
Jens Wilke via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17345
Re: ForkJoinPool sometimes blocks an outer on a nested task (Java 9 and later)
Thu, 01 Oct 2020 20:04:28 +0000
Olivier Peyrusse via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17344
ForkJoinPool sometimes blocks an outer on a nested task (Java 9 and later)
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:14:47 +0200
Lukas Rytz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17343
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:03:01 -0700
Shevek via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17342
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:34:28 +0200
Romain Colle via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17341
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:18:46 +0200
Bart Wiegmans via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17340
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:40:53 +0000
Olivier Peyrusse via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17339
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:54:37 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17338
Re: Battles with CountedCompleter
Sun, 27 Sep 2020 14:28:40 +0000
Olivier Peyrusse via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17337
Battles with CountedCompleter
Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:01:30 -0700
Shevek via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17336
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:34:56 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17335
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:42:33 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17334
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:45:21 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17333
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:01:48 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17332
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:15:42 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17331
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:30:05 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17330
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 08:40:49 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17329
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 08:33:28 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17328
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 08:09:22 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17327
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 00:03:00 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17326
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 14:53:22 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17325
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 07:36:57 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17324
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sat, 22 Aug 2020 23:25:07 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17323
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sun, 23 Aug 2020 11:42:43 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17322
Re: CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sat, 22 Aug 2020 11:07:21 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17321
CompletableFuture#postComplete() can be invoked concurrently?
Sat, 22 Aug 2020 23:16:52 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17320
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:06:05 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17319
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:48:22 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17318
Re: CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Thu, 20 Aug 2020 19:25:51 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17317
CompletableFuture.cancel vs Future.cancel bug?
Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:11:28 +0300
Sergi Vladykin via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17316
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:55:53 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17315
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:17:52 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17314
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:23:29 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17313
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:13:33 +0800 (CST)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17312
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:52:48 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17311
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:13:39 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17310
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:55:24 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17309
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 09:24:36 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17308
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 00:02:20 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17307
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 07:22:46 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17306
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:18:17 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17305
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 07:03:09 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17304
Re: Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Fri, 14 Aug 2020 21:41:00 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17303
Why SynchronousQueue.TransferQueue#clean() not clean the last node
Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:12:48 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17302
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:53:36 +0800 (CST)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17301
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:42:16 +0800 (CST)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17300
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:04:12 +0000
Jason Mehrens via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17299
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:12:14 +0800 (CST)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17298
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:07:29 +0800 (CST)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17297
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Tue, 4 Aug 2020 19:02:01 +0000
Jason Mehrens via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17296
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Tue, 4 Aug 2020 23:55:55 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17295
Re: Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:13:17 +0000
Jason Mehrens via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17294
Somewhere in this constructor of PriorityBlockingQueue is hard to understand
Tue, 4 Aug 2020 20:10:23 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17293
Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:59:26 +0100
Ron Pressler via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17292
Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:24:17 +0200 (CEST)
Remi Forax via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17291
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.