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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,af960bc705aaf51b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-02 17:08:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Complexity of protected objects Date: 2 Mar 2002 17:08:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0203021708.4812dbe7@posting.google.com> References: <4519e058.0202251401.27b95bb0@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015117687 25772 127.0.0.1 (3 Mar 2002 01:08:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Mar 2002 01:08:07 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20707 Date: 2002-03-03T01:08:07+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in message news:<4519e058.0202251401.27b95bb0@posting.google.com>... > I've generally found that to be good advice. In particular, my PO's > always seem to end up just being specialized semaphores or locks, no > matter how grandiose I start out planning to make them. Things just > work a lot better that way. This is MUCH too restrictive, it is perfectly reasonable to have a large complex data structure as a protected type where the operations on it ensure that consistency is maintained by doing related updates in a non-interruptible manner.