Re: notifying particular thread to wake up.

On Oct 18, 10:14 pm, Lew <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nebulou...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
What's your evidence for drawing this conclusion? Don't forget, Lew
and Andrew have made clear in other threads that people who post here
are considered to be affiliated with any sites they recommend until
proven otherwise.

This is, of course, a complete misstatement of both Andrew's and my comments.

"Of course". Cute.

Ever heard the phrase "Actions speak louder than words"?

In the thread with the web site named Sardyo or whatever, the OP said
"I happened upon this site ..." and recommended it. You responded
promptly by accusing him of being a lying spammer and specifically
asserted that the OP had an affiliation with Sardyo (or whatever it
was). When asked, you failed to provide any evidence that he had any
such affiliation (and a cursory examination of his usenet headers
failed to reveal any obvious one, such as posting from ...sardyo.com!
not-for-mail or the like or with an @sardyo.com email address or X-
Complaints-To: or similarly). But you continued to treat the OP
harshly on the basis of what appears to be an assumption. However
plausible, it verifiably demonstrates an attitude of "someone who
recommends a commercial site/product is affiliated with it in some way
until proven otherwise" aka "guilty until proven innocent". Andrew's
behavior in the same thread demonstrated likewise.

Googling posts from a few days before this post's datestamp with your
names will produce evidence to back my claim.

You still have not furnished any evidence to back yours about that
particular poster.

Yet you become harshly critical when I demonstrate a similar (and
perhaps a bit too serious) suspicion about another instance of a
person writing a post whose sole substantial content is the
recommendation of something commercial.

"Hypocrisy" seems to be the watchword of the day.

But you are completely missing the point: there is a big difference in
unsolicited posts about site and referring to a site in a relevant
thread.

Indeed.

Yes, the one is targeted and the other is not. That something is
targeted does not make it any the less commercial in content. Nor does
it make it magically not fail to disclose that it's linking to an ad
instead of directly to information relevant to the OP's question. Nor
does it magically indicate to the OP that java.sun.com has free
tutorials on topics relevant to his question that might suffice for
his needs. Nor ... well, I trust that you get the picture.

In fact, not only do I support the original controversial recommendation for
the book, /Java Concurrency in Practice/ by Brian Goetz, et al., I assert that
it is a necessary part of every Java programmer's library and that we should
all spend our own money, if necessary, to buy it. I did.

You can assert that the sky is striped green and orange for that
matter. It doesn't necessarily make it so. And if the book is
excellent and valuable for every practitioner of Java, so what? The
first response to the OP still linked to a lousy ad instead of
answering his question free of charge. The first response still failed
to mention the Java Tutorial that might be very helpful to the OP and
that we can't be sure he knew about at that time. Maybe he'd still
need that book eventually, but he could postpone it until financially
more convenient, or the thing dropped in price, or they finally
abolished the abomination of copyright law, or whatever. And of course
the first response still failed to do much to directly help the OP.
All it did was refer him to a web site that in turn would provide him
nothing of value without parting him from his money first, even though
it could have done a whole lot more. The book could be the greatest
thing since sliced bread and none of what I just said would be any the
less true.

The originally proffered link to that book via a co-author, the highly
regarded Doug Lea,
<http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/>
I don't have in front of me, but Prof. Lea in turn links to
<http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0321349601>
and, I'm sure, many other vendors carry it.

Absolutely fascinating.

The original link was provided in response to someone asking about
multithreaded Java programming.

In lieu of any directly useful information on that topic, or a link to
directly useful information. As in an actual answer to the OP's
question, free of charge.

It is also, I think, a useful book for multithreaded programming generally,
not just in Java, despite its focus on Java idioms. C# has somewhat similar
idioms, and understanding concurrency is vital to most platforms these days.

Possibly true, but this also does not materially alter what I said
earlier.

.