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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a0224dc3d1e52f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Streams and Concurrency Date: 1998/12/31 Message-ID: <76eubc$ut7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 427331224 References: <76dhm3$rkq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <76e2rl$a4b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.81.84 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 31 04:25:17 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-12-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Well I wrote my previous message before reading all the followups, but I see they basically all agree with what I suggested, namely that it makes more sense to create the logging abstraction at a higher level. Clearly there is no conceivable way for the implementation of the streams themselves to provide automatic locking, so the thought that they should seems fundamentally flawed. The stream implementation *could* provide the primitives so that attribute implementations could easily provide the necessary locking, but I still think it makes sense to abstract at a higher level. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own