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 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr8963443pbc.0.1339833787991;
        Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni56577pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!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 09:03:08 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2wr37iszn.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$1@dont-email.me> <m21ulfkayx.fsf@pushface.org>
	<17b8mcqy4f63k$.1jwvmc6qjjvnq$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="VkRmmmXzMj956AdxXtqrqg";
	logging-data="3610"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eVXw/LsI4vmcuat7eYVWlLZckHVnVg6k="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UshvYNVg6oiZhRKjUecahwuEzz4=
	sha1:nwCYxia8pAm5WEh6KMJCXDd+7Ww=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-06-16T09:03:08+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:26 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> That would need marshaling. Rendezvous and mutexes are great because
> they copy nothing.

So? this is usually for debug.

> IMO, queues should only be used for asynchronous scenarios.

In my scenario, getting the log information out is lower-priority than
handling the real-time processing. You May Not Block while processing
events.