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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d10b4841e4a643b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-14 07:01:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3CB940F7.4EC50CFD@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Are rendezvous dead? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.177.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1018792856 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:00:56 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:00:56 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_@SJGTZYQBQXYQ[OD]_HBWB]^PCPDLXUNNHXIJYWZUYICD^RAQBKZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON[ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNTCIRPIJH[@RQKBXLRZ@CD^HKANYVW@RLGEZEJN@\_WZJBNZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q[GPC_A@CARQVXDSDA^M]@DRVUM@RBM Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:00:56 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22513 Date: 2002-04-14T14:00:56+00:00 List-Id: "Anatoly Chernyshev" 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