Talk:Real-time Java

Untitled

David Holmes writes:

The reference re Microsoft is completely incorrect. There was a very early Java Threads whitepaper that defined a strict priority-based scheduling model. That model was not implementable on Solaris or Windows at the time, without involving the real-time scheduling classes of the OS. The spec was subsequently relaxed.

Second any reference to "protecting code" versus "protecting data" is very misleading and confusing. You protect data by controlling the code that accesses that data. The level of abstraction at which you do this then lends some people to characterise as "protecting data" or "protecting code". An abstraction involving shared objects that can't be accessed in anything but a thread-safe manner would be classified as "data protection". Java doesn't provide that directly but allows you build this by applying "code protection" in the right way.

-Original Message-

From: Dhanji R. Prasanna
To: concurrency-interest@cs.oswego.edu
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: [concurrency-interest] wikipedia article

I came across this article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-Time_Java

Although I am generally wary of anything wikipedia says, it's often ok for minor technical definitions and such. But I was bothered when I read the following points:

It was not immediately suitable for Real time systems for two reasons:

• The threading behavior was largely unspecified. This, reputedly, was a concession to Microsoft to allow for the weak threading models underlying the Microsoft Windows operating system at the time.

• Still, there is only one synchronization primitive available for Lock (software engineering), the Monitor (synchronization) pattern, meaning that only code sections can be guarded, not data.

Obviously the article is quite out of date, but was it true that the poor threading model in early java was a concession to Microsoft?

Also, data can be guarded directly with j.u.c.atomic--if I'm not mistaken, obviating the second point?

Dhanji.

That's all well-and-good, but I saw this discussion on concurrency-interest and adjusted the article accordingly. The original article was not good (and the version I wrote wasn't great, but it was much improved). You deleted perfectly true information about Java locks not supporting priorities, so I am reverting.Jm307 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Real time Java → Real-time Java – Most of the cited sources use a hyphen, which is the natural form for the compound modifier used in this term. See also the list of related topics at Real-time. All other subjects in that list use a hyphen. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.