On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Raoul Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On the other hand, interactions with non-TX code and livelock (p.41) >> strike me as potential problems. > > the scary thing to me about the change from a world of possible > deadlock to a work of possible livelock is that the former is *really > easy to see* when it happens. :-)
I think this one comes down to the maturity of the implementations. Deadlocks are only easy to see (in Java land) because we have tools that make it so; ie. you can send SIGQUIT to the JVM and have all the relevant information show up on stdout. Similarly, TMs could have some sort of mechanism by which you could get a list of transactions with high retry counts, and their most volatile (in the non-java-keyword sense of the word) references. Though I don't know much about TMs, I will grant that I have not actually seen such tools for TMs, so your argument probably still holds, but I don't think it will hold forever. -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
