2d
awarded Famous Question
Mar
4
awarded Popular Question
Feb
17
awarded Good Question
Jan
9
awarded Notable Question
Nov
5
awarded Yearling
Aug
8
awarded Self-Learner
Mar
16
awarded Notable Question
Oct
24
awarded Popular Question
Sep
22
awarded Popular Question
Aug
25
accepted EJB 3.1 container managed concurrency vs. synchronized
Aug
25
comment EJB 3.1 container managed concurrency vs. synchronized
If I understand you correctly, may I phrase it informally like this: Given one class containing both of the above methods, with container managed concurrency the semantics is "concurrent reads are allowed as long as no writing is going on". The semantics of the contrasting example will be "concurrent reads are allowed, also while writing goes on, but only one thread will be writing at a time".
Aug
24
asked EJB 3.1 container managed concurrency vs. synchronized
Aug
17
awarded Popular Question
May
17
awarded Teacher
May
16
awarded Scholar
May
16
accepted Maven 3 and JUnit 4 compilation problem: package org.junit does not exist
May
16
answered Maven 3 and JUnit 4 compilation problem: package org.junit does not exist
May
1
asked Maven 3 and JUnit 4 compilation problem: package org.junit does not exist
Jul
16
comment Java method naming conventions: Too many getters
Thanks for your input, but I think you are missing my point. There is no need to differentiate between variables on the one hand and methods without side effects that returns something on the other hand. Their semantics are identical in that they represent a value. Syntactically they have to differ by the parentehis () at the end of the method name. Such a small syntactic difference is suitable to give a hint to the uninteresting fact that despite the identical semantics a property's technical implementation is a method instead of a variable.
Jul
13
revised Java method naming conventions: Too many getters
added 60 characters in body
1 2