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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4bd6ca8f7a1eb225
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr9816682pbj.5.1322185079757;
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni14741pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rego, P." <pvrego@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Class with task destructor
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <25043081.79.1322185079284.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqmm19>
References: <30604696.94.1322013045135.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqzz20>
 <jaihpe$sum$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@googlegroups.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 189.110.14.179
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1322185079 13408 127.0.0.1 (25 Nov 2011 01:37:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:37:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jaihpe$sum$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=189.110.14.179;
 posting-account=TRgI1QoAAABSsYi-ox3Pi6N-JEKKU0cu
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19131
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2011-11-24T17:37:59-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Are you by any chance trying something like the RAII pattern in C++?
> (which as far as I can see, stands for "automatic destruction is orderly 
> shutdown")
Yes, something like this.
 
> If so, I think I'm with Dmitry, in that Controlled (or 
> Limited_Controlled) give you the tools to automate the process. 
> So your approach (2) is correct; you must stop the task before 
> deallocating it. However your class user doesn't need to know that, 
> because you can put the detail in Finalize. (which, if Simon is right, 
> may need to become a little more complex)
At this point it's not a big issue if the task knows the details. But the finalization timing concerns me a little. No problem if a task gets stuck when other is running, but I intend to run thousands of them in parallel, so I need to ensure this.