So if I'd need that extra performance, say in a private library of 
transducers not intended to be shared with other Clojure developers, it is 
perfectly Ok to use a java.lang.Object instead of a volatile, right ?


Am Freitag, 2. Januar 2015 15:59:36 UTC+1 schrieb tbc++:
>
> "As far as I understand, the step-function of a transducer is never(?) 
> accessed concurrently by more than 1 thread." 
>
> It's actually "one thread at a time". And you're right, stuff like 
> Core.async may bounce a transducer between several different threads, but 
> only 1 thread "owns" it at a given time. 
>
> Timothy
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Jörg Winter <[email protected] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As seen in this example of a stateful transducer...
>>
>> http://crossclj.info/ns/org.clojure/clojure/latest/clojure.core.html#_partition-by
>>
>> ... I am wondering what is the concrete motivation behind using 
>> 'volatile!' instead of say a simple (mutable) Java-Object wrapper ?
>> In the partition-all example, an ArrayList is used for aggregating the 
>> 'temporary' results for the step-function, so this mutable state is not 
>> concerned with threading at all.
>> Why then is there a threading-concern with pv (the volatile!) ?
>>
>> As far as I understand, the step-function of a transducer is never(?) 
>> accessed concurrently by more than 1 thread.
>>
>> Is volatile! necessary because transducers should be usable with 
>> core.async ?
>> Or is it just an easy way to get a mutable object in Clojure ?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Joerg
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 
>> <javascript:>
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with 
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected] <javascript:>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that–lacking 
> zero–they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C 
> programs.”
> (Robert Firth) 
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
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
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to