On 5/31/12 7:01 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
I'm
suggesting "mutex" but kept private inside the class /that it locks/.
Yes, it's a visibility issue, the issue is that the mutex used by
synchronized classes/methods is too visible/accessible and this opens it
up for deadlocks which are otherwise impossible.
You're suggesting an idiom based on an unrestricted abstraction
("mutex") combined with a language feature ("private"). That's no
progress because:
1. People can still misuse the unrestricted "mutex" as they have for the
past 50 years.
2. The idiom can be done TODAY with a regular class that has a member of
type synchronized class. Alternatively, you could use the mutex type in
core directly.
So your suggestion actually makes the language worse and adds no power.
Your impression being that "synchronized" is too deadlock-prone, and you
believe the solution is taking one step BACK and eliminate it in favor
of the "private"-based idiom in conjunction with the "mutex" type which
is deadlock-prone PLUS prone to a variety of other issues.
So where's the mutex that would be used to synchronize objects that
are not synchronizable?
In the wrapper class/struct/object which derives a synchronized
class/struct from the original. My D foo is not strong enough to just
come up with valid D code for the idiom on the fly, but essentially you
wrap the original object in a new object using a template which adds the
mutex member and the interface methods (lock, tryLock, and unlock)
required. No, this doesn't work with "final" classes.. but it shouldn't,
they're final after all. For them you need to add/manage the mutex
manually - the price you pay for "final".
Is there anything here that can't be done today, and pronto?
There are cases in which you want to do multiple operations under a
single critical section, even though the API is otherwise
well-designed. That may be for correctness, efficiency, or both. I
don't see why we'd want to disallow that, it's a good idiom.
Who suggested disallowing this? No-one. There are 3 main use cases I see
for this;
1. Several disparate objects locked by a single mutex - in which case
the correct solution is a separate mutex/monitor object.
There's also "13.14.3 Forcing Identical Mutexes" in TDPL.
2. A single object, locked for serveral method calls - in which case the
method-passed-a-delegate idea (mentioned below/ described in a separate
thread) works, unless..
Here the synchronized-based idiom works well if the cost of reacquiring
an already-owned mutex is sufficiently low.
3. The calls span several scopes, in which case good-old manual
lock/unlock is required (synchronized blocks don't help here)
Right. In these rare cases core.sync.mutex would be recommendable.
Looking forward for a fleshed out proposal. Make sure you motivate it
properly.
Sorry, I have no spare time to spare. You're getting free ideas/thoughts
from me, feel free to ignore them.
Thanks. Let me know if I understand correctly that your idea boils down
to "I don't like synchronized, let's deprecate it and get back to
core.sync.mutex and recommend the private thingamaroo." In that case, I
disagree. I believe synchronized has good merits that are being ignored.
On first look, the inversion of control using delegates delegates has
similar liabilities as straight scoped locking.
True, it's basically the same as a synchronized block in that respect.
What we actually want is a way to limit the calls made by the delegate
to methods of the object itself. If it could not call a synchronized
method on a 2nd object, you could not possibly deadlock. Except, that is
to say, unless you held a separate lock beforehand - but, the important
point here is that you would have to take both locks explicitly, rather
than by an implicit synchronized method call, making the bug far more
obvious to code inspection.
Right. This is very D-unlike. I don't see anything in the current
language that can limit the things a lambda/delegate can do.
Andrei
