Re: Are rendezvous dead?

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Anatoly Chernyshev" <rhezusfactor@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB940F7.4EC50CFD@yahoo.com...
> I remember, a long time ago I did read a paper entitled like "Rendezvous
> are dead. Long live protected object" where it was stated that protected
> types are much more convenient for communication between tasks than
> rendezvous. And also the rationale dwells mostly upon these types, not
> rendezvous.
> The question is: are there any practical instances (in Ada 95) when use
> of rendezvous is more advantageous than of protected types? In other
> words, is it worhty of trying to write the code using only protected
> types and completely ignoring rendezvous as possible solution (like the
> GOTO operator)?


If tasks require _direct_ communication/synchronization, rendezvous is generally
the right way to go for that specific part of their behavior.  Otherwise,
protected objects are preferable.


--
---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com          Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com               Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                                 Software Fault Tolerance