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: 103376,98fcd569e727e97c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Tasking Techniques - Opinions?
Date: 1997/06/05
Message-ID: <EBB1DL.5BK@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 246490377
References: <5n2hjr$ohm$1@news.pacifier.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5n2hjr$ohm$1@news.pacifier.com>,
Steve Doiel <steved@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Now the question:
>Is this a reasonable implementation?  Or is there a better
>approach?
>
>I am making almost no use of Ada's "rendevous," and am leaning
>more toward using protected types to pass data through queues.

If you don't need the "extra" functionality of rendezvous (which is
quite often true), then it's perfectly reasonable to use protected
types, and never use rendezvous.  That is, declare all of your tasks
without any entries.

- Bob