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: 103376,534dd301375921ac
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr8715943pbc.5.1339829365414;
        Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni56383pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Text_IO.Put_Line() thread-safe?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m21ulfkayx.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
	<jrdc48$14h2$1@adenine.netfront.net>
	<3fff1269-06f5-47a2-bc10-c2145b3a297d@googlegroups.com>
	<jrdntv$1fi9$1@adenine.netfront.net> <jrgpc9$a2u$1@dont-email.me>
	<jrh7lv$4qg$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="VkRmmmXzMj956AdxXtqrqg";
	logging-data="13170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GB3nFI4iJZrU58jzCIsLylkfi9dWkJDA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R+fzHv+5BPWuJy/VycPe2AUB3Wk=
	sha1:i2/03s7NMTUExGM5mkve3nQ7yxE=
X-Received-Bytes: 1775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-06-16T07:49:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

> Le 16/06/2012 04:00, BrianG a écrit :
>> On the Put_Line issue, why not simply wrap it in a protected object
> Because all IO's are potentially blocking operations.
>
> By all means, use a task and a rendezvous! Simple, no problem, it works.
> PO are for simple, relatively low level stuff (in general). Rendezvous
> are generally better for high level synchronization.

I feel more comfortable it the output requests are queued, so a PO
wrapping a queue with an outputter task seems natural.

Or, nowadays, a synchronized queue (but note, that's for definite types
only, not so good for strings).