On Feb 6, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
Then why bother with @synchronized? Don't fix what isn't broke.
It's one less ivar to worry about. I retro-fitted the lock to one other object I wanted to make thread-safe, only because I couldn't think of a way of doing this safely with @synchronized(), and thought I'd ask before committing. And now I'm wondering how @synthesize does atomic sets internally...
Since you're using a setter, you need to take out the lock on a different object. You might be able to take it out on self (a la Java synchronization), or you might have to create a separate dummy NSObject on which to take out the lock. And we've now come full-circle to the ivarLock you had in your original implementation.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But thanks for confirming this. Guess NS(Recursive)Lock still has its uses...
Nick Zitzmann <http://www.chronosnet.com/> _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
