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,c3c4ae45442f569e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada.Text_IO and protected objects
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.14.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1114747457.868019.93210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <m23bt9dik6.fsf@hugin.crs4.it> <42720DCD.6030304@mailinator.com>
 <m2y8b1bzdt.fsf@hugin.crs4.it> <4272260d$0$30463$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>
 <m2acnhn43i.fsf_-_@hugin.crs4.it> <d4tftf$m7i$1@kda-news.kongsberg.com>
 <1114811841.250745.71870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <m2mzrg3a51.fsf_-_@hugin.crs4.it>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:21:34 +0200
Message-ID: <1s8wkzten2pnf.p7sbzkiszqsd.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2005 12:21:28 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b5df2c5d.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=`5ij2K5H@@=E][lTbkER26:ejgIfPPld4jW\KbG]kaM8liQbn6H@_E9^[gJemfNOh6[6LHn;2LCV>COgUkn_?_Y?WiRECcWkSV7
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10852
Date: 2005-04-30T12:21:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 30 Apr 2005 11:07:54 +0200, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:

> I am not sure if the appropriate way of handling access to
> Standard_Output is by using a protected object to manage a queue for
> transferring data to the task doing the actual writing to
> Standard_Output, or if the interaction should be through a direct
> rendezvous with the task doing the actual writing to Standard_Output.

#3: It can be also done on the context of the same task using a protected
object implementing a mutex. A controlled object is then used for safe
mutex access.

But a monitor task (the second variant you mention) is cleaner and safer in
my view. It might be slightly slower than mutexes, though that should
depend on the compiler-platform.

> There is a "dining philosophers" example available somewhere on the
> web (written by Feldman, I think), where you probably can find a good
> example of how to solve the combination of tasking and IO.

Dining philosophers is rather an example of why mutexes/semaphores are
dangerous (deadlock) and low-level and what could be done about that.

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