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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b4b864fa2b61bbba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!news.banetele.no!news.hacking.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parallel Text Corpus Processing with Ada?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:05:25 -0600
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fhlehr$st4$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <1194735959.240323.38210@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <1t1ab1hzsng9p.101gcl2uomeoy.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1194821365.830120.106600@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <m2wsslwyqr.fsf@mac.com>
 <1195083519.791396.162260@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
 <m2oddvw6xn.fsf@mac.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1195261307 29604 69.95.181.76 (17 Nov 2007 01:01:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:01:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18449
Date: 2007-11-16T19:05:25-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Simon Wright" <simon.j.wright@mac.com> wrote in message
news:m2oddvw6xn.fsf@mac.com...
> braver <deliverable@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Nov 14, 1:45 am, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> You did spot that Ada.Containers aren't task-safe? (ie, you need to
> >> lock the containers yourself ...)
> >
> > Man, that's a problem!  What about BCs, are they task-safe?
>
> At one point the BCs followed their original C++ source by providing a
> couple of synchronised forms.
>
> I found that for any serious use I couldn't find a one-size-fits-all
> (well, few-sizes-fit-all perhaps) approach that let me build real
> apps. Iterators were one problem, applications where the data
> structure involves multiple containers was another. I did consider
> some shared-mutex schemes (would have involved something like
> constraining container instances by access Mutex'Class or some
> such). But on the whole it seemed that it would be better to require
> people to but the protection _they_ need round their data.

Which is the same reason that the standard Ada containers don't allow
multiple tasks accessing a single container. (Nor does any other Ada
predefined library, for that matter. This is the standard behavior of Ada
predefined libraries - see RM A(3) - that's paragraph 3 at the beginning of
Annex A - there is nothing specific to containers here.)

There is some work going on to provide some for of "protected" containers,
but it is not clear what or when that will come to fruition.

                     Randy.