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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: tasking design considerations
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:01:58 +0100
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <o5tc6k$9s2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <396469b6-6efe-49e7-914b-9226637e031e@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:00:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d21b5bdcd169b790810d9544b9239b82";
	logging-data="10114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sUd/t1Q0UEdQ/2L7osvKN7NOEGRB0ja8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.6.0
In-Reply-To: <396469b6-6efe-49e7-914b-9226637e031e@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cLq+HVVhPmUwUpM89V9OAihnJyU=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33105
Date: 2017-01-20T17:01:58+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 01/20/2017 09:07 AM, rrr.eee.27@gmail.com wrote:
>
> For the ease of reasoning you can assume typically around 0 .. 20 messages
> (the maximum certainly << 1000 messages) per time frame T. The cycle time of
> T is fixed now to 1 minute, but might go down in the future to 1 second.
> Channel B of course has exactly one message per T.  The channels are TCP
> sockets. Reception of a single complete message in channel A activates
> callback function in my program.

Callbacks are usually a mechanism used to deal with concurrency in a sequential 
language. When you have a concurrent language, use of callbacks is usually a 
poor design.

> I want now create a protected object stack. The callbacks from channel A fill
> the stack on the top. A cyclic task with a cycle time T reads and removes all
> collected messages from the bottom of the stack. The task processes the
> messages and sends out the result.

This is a queue, not a stack.

This seems like a reasonable design. The only question is how task B decides 
which messages to include for a time frame. If B reads until the queue is empty, 
it may read msgs that belong in the next time frame. One way to avoid this is to 
have B obtain the length of the Q and read that many msgs. Another is for B to 
invoke an operation that gives B a copy of the Q and clears the Q.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Frankie Wolf, wanted by Federal authorities for
dancing with a mailman."
Take the Money and Run
143