On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Luke Evans <l...@eversosoft.com> wrote: > My discovery (and life is full of them, so nothing particularly unusual > here) is that the practicality of doing the locking appears to 'tip over' if > you have binding to your Core Data. I have my main thread, and one > background thread trawling for files - both scrupulously locked on the MOC > around _any_ access, i.e. even reading a property.
No you don't. You're locking around any *explicit* access to a property. Meanwhile your implicit accesses due to bindings are going unlocked, and your code fails, hard. It's a basic tenet of multithreading. If you're taking an unsafe datastructure, and making it safe by synchronizing all accesses with locks, you *cannot* give *any* references to that data structure to outside code. Bindings will not follow your locking protocol, so you can't let them touch your context with this approach. Mike _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
