Re: Are rendezvous dead?

[Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

Anatoly Chernyshev wrote:

> Hello, everybody,
> 
> I remember, a long time ago I did read a paper entitled like "Rendezvous
> are dead. Long live protected object" where it was stated that protected
> types are much more convenient for communication between tasks than
> rendezvous. And also the rationale dwells mostly upon these types, not
> rendezvous.

Rendezvous and protected objects are orthogonal views on synchronization: 
procedural and OO-ish, if you want. None can supersede another.

> The question is: are there any practical instances (in Ada 95) when use
> of rendezvous is more advantageous than of protected types? In other
> words, is it worhty of trying to write the code using only protected
> types and completely ignoring rendezvous as possible solution (like the
> GOTO operator)?

If you try to do it for a system of a real size and complexity, you will 
probably end with a kind of obscure emulation of rendezvous using protected 
objects.

Issues to consider are: blocking, parameter passing at 
synchronization points, extensibility, layered protocols.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de