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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,470e89e7a6575920
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Periodic tasks - organization
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e5e7d089-7e6d-4632-acbc-a81936ff489d@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <86589099-2e4e-4b7d-ace0-6f1f864a3fa2@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<6e0jbhF4o43oU1@mid.individual.net>
 <561c8fa7-f26d-49a3-b54c-229c20462c04@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	<m2iqv5ecgk.fsf@mac.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.225.224.254
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1216248476 3477 127.0.0.1 (16 Jul 2008 22:47:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.225.224.254;
	posting-account=Qh2kiQoAAADpCLlhT_KTYoGO8dU3n4I6
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; InfoPath.1;
 .NET CLR
	3.0.04506.648),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1182
Date: 2008-07-16T15:47:56-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 16, 2:38=A0pm, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
> Anh Vo <anhvofrc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > It is even better to use periodic timers built on top
> > Ada.Real_Time.Timing_Events. Then, explicit tasks are not needed.
>
> Only 'better' if that solution meets a need that's not met by the
> straightforward approach.
>
> I see that Timing Event Handlers are meant to be executed directly by
> the protected handler operation
> (http://www.adaic.com/standards/05rm/html/RM-D-15.html25/2), so
> clearly the intent is that some task should be released by the action
> of the handler (similar to interrupts). So you still need explicit
> tasks! just replacing a delay with a blocking wait on the PO which
> will be triggered by the timing event -- a lot of complication.

Making two explicit tasks involves overhead for sure. It is true that
using PO construct is more complex than using two independent tasks.
Furthermore, an explicit task is not needed once the timer is started
initially.