queue container?

[Martin Nowak]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:48:01 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:44:50 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan  
> <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. You don't even need to have the entire function
>> synchronized. You can define your own synchronization blocks, using
>> the object's or classes monitor.
>
> I would think to get much benefit over blind "synchronize every method"  
> you'd want to have multiple locks to allow two non-conflicting  
> operations.  It's not easy to design, nor does it make sense to me that  
> the same API should be used.
>
> I almost think that the concept of an efficiently shared container is  
> completely different than a non-shared one.  I believe there are even  
> designs for lock-free containers out there.
>
> -Steve

There are tons of lock-free containers.
Especially queues and deques have well know implementations.
But you can go as far as maps and doubly linked lists.

martin