From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Complexity of protected objects
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:32:42 +1100
Date: 2002-03-01T10:32:42+11:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dale-1C20CF.10324101032002@its-aw-news.its.rmit.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3c7e7c60.8192226@news.cis.dfn.de
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Using a protected object to read and write files is a clear
>violation of the intention and recommendations for proctected
>objects. Protected objects should be non-blocking. I/O is
>always potentially blocking.
Why is this? I see this as being a piece of programming advice,
- it's not a good idea to hold locks for a long time - but is
there any more to it than that? Are there some other consequences
of scheduling than that?
Dale
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-28 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-25 16:28 Complexity of protected objects tony gair
2002-02-25 16:45 ` Marin David Condic
2002-03-03 1:11 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-03 4:13 ` Dale Stanbrough
2002-03-03 19:50 ` Robert Dewar
2002-02-25 17:35 ` Jim Rogers
2002-02-28 22:09 ` Nick Roberts
2002-02-28 23:32 ` Dale Stanbrough [this message]
2002-03-01 5:45 ` Jim Rogers
2002-03-03 0:59 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-01 17:42 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-03-03 1:06 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-03 6:53 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-03-03 19:36 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-04 20:04 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-03-03 0:54 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-03 0:32 ` Robert Dewar
2002-02-25 22:01 ` Ted Dennison
2002-03-03 1:08 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-04 9:33 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2002-03-04 16:44 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox