Re: Multitasking and containers

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org>]

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Write your own container. Parallel systems require delicate handmade work.
> 
> Horrible advice.  Just declare the container inside a protect object, and
> manipulate the container by calling protected procedures.  Works great...

Not at all, even for sequential systems. Standard libraries are 
necessarily compromises among various concerns such as safety, 
performance, ease of use, and so on. Specific projects may, and 
sometimes will, have requirements that are not met by such libraries. In 
such cases, custom versions are needed.

In this case, we may have an instance of premature optimization; the OP 
seems to be worrying about the overhead of wrapping a container in a 
protected object without any evidence that this approach won't meet the 
project's requirements (indeed, it seems there is no project and no 
specific requirements are involved). In that case, it probably will 
"work great". But in specific cases a custom version that does allow 
unprotected multiple readers may be required.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"There's no messiah here. There's a mess all right, but no messiah."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
84