From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,534dd301375921ac
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr8951946pbc.0.1339833499303;
        Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni56564pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.ecp.fr!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Text_IO.Put_Line() thread-safe?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:58:08 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <17b8mcqy4f63k$.1jwvmc6qjjvnq$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
 <jrdc48$14h2$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <3fff1269-06f5-47a2-bc10-c2145b3a297d@googlegroups.com>
 <jrdntv$1fi9$1@adenine.netfront.net> <jrgpc9$a2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <jrh7lv$4qg$1@dont-email.me> <m21ulfkayx.fsf@pushface.org>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4RFYTQ6jM/dAKFJoI0fUkg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-06-16T09:58:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:26 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
> 
>> Le 16/06/2012 04:00, BrianG a �crit :
>>> On the Put_Line issue, why not simply wrap it in a protected object
>> Because all IO's are potentially blocking operations.
>>
>> By all means, use a task and a rendezvous! Simple, no problem, it works.
>> PO are for simple, relatively low level stuff (in general). Rendezvous
>> are generally better for high level synchronization.
> 
> I feel more comfortable it the output requests are queued, so a PO
> wrapping a queue with an outputter task seems natural.

That would need marshaling. Rendezvous and mutexes are great because they
copy nothing.

IMO, queues should only be used for asynchronous scenarios.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de