Re: How to avoid unreferenced objects (mutexes etc)

[dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov)]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:11:43 -0000, "Nick Roberts"
<nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>The general idea is that a mutex is a low-level synchronisation construct,
>and Ada provides a higher-level construct (protected objects) that takes
>away much of the pain and danger of using mutexes directly.

Absolutely. So my suspicion goes. Or else, there must be something
fundamentally wrong [in design] if unused objects are *really*
required. It clearly indicates a *problem*.

I would prefer a monitor based solution as Jeffrey Carter suggested,
but I just failed to design it [properly].

Maybe I should describe the problem. There is a communication channel
implemented as a tagged type. The base type provides low-level I/O
operations. It has read and write tasks serving as monitors. The
problem is with the derived types [potentially an arbitrary number of
them]. They extend the base type and  provide layered high-level
operations. Some of them must lock the channel [either read or write
one]. A "natural" solution would be to extend monitors, but alas tasks
are not tagged. An untagged solution requires an increasing number of
wrapping subroutines [thus run-time penalty]. A genericity-based
solution produces a combinatoric explosion of packages used as the
parameters for other packages etc. They must be instantiated at the
library level. In other words it is a mess.

So I chose the lesser evil = mutexes with all that nasy problems of
error recovery, you have pointed. I really do not like it.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov