Re: Ravenscar-compliant bounded buffer

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 5 Wrz, 05:00, "Steve" <nospam_steve...@comcast.net> wrote:

> While I don't know much about the Ravenscar profile

:-)

In particular, one of the constituents of the Ravenscar profile is
this:

pragma Restrictions (Max_Protected_Entries => 1);

which explains the whole issue.

Bounded buffer is obvious to implement without the above restriction
and I completely agree that using two separate protected objects is an
"abstraction inversion".
The problem is that to be compliant with the Ravenscar profile a
protected type can have *at most one entry* - the rest is really a
question about the "correct hack" that has to be applied for typical
shared resource patterns.

I argue that my hack is better (more readable and easier to analyze)
than the original hack presented in example 12 of the Ravenscar
document.

I will not argue that any of these hacks is better than the
straightforward implementation with two entries, but I can accept the
statement that this is the price for having a uniform convention that
pays off in general, although not necessarily in this particular case.

Still, since I'm new to Ada, I welcome any comment that can help me
understand it better.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/