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: 103376,8eff44ec1bcf8433 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-16 12:09:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Container reqs Date: 16 Oct 2001 14:59:45 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: <9qctpn$lil$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BCC01B1.18C18C98@free.fr> <3BCC6CB7.20BAA30D@boeing.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1003258896 4249 128.183.220.71 (16 Oct 2001 19:01:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2001 19:01:36 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14731 Date: 2001-10-16T19:01:36+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter writes: > Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote: > > > > I'm not for making a container "threadsafe" to the point where > > several tasks may modify the container without providing their > > synchronisation. > > In my experience > > * most containers are accessed only by one task > > * for those who are not, an explicit synchronisation is needed for > > other > > purpose as the container is not the only part member of the > > datastructure > > which has to be modified atomically. > > This is an interesting assertion, considering that a protected queue is > a useful and common form of intertask communication. Ok, let me play mediator. Jean-Marc is saying "In my (perhaps somewhat limited) experience, most data structures that need to be protected from multi-tasking are actually part of a larger structure". And Jeffrey is saying "In my (perhaps somewhat limited) experience, a simple protected queue is often useful". No conflict here, just different experience. Apparently, the library should have both task safe and non-task safe components, as the Booch library has (and my library does not; my experience matches Jean-Marc's, so far). We hope to get the union of all useful components, not the intersection of components _everyone_ finds useful, which would be the null set. -- -- Stephe