On 08/04/2018 04:03 AM, Jeremiah Breeden wrote: > Ok, with that in mind, the current set of loops are not being done atomically > (it is not done inside a protected operation). So the next question is how do > we get to where they are done in a more atomic manner. I started off with a > mutex like implementation for the close loop.since the close procedure could > potentially block (and thus could not go in a protected operation). That > wouldn't work for the ping loop without restructuring the ping procedure > itself > (and pull out the deletions to be done afterwards as mentioned in an earlier > email/post).
With GNAT, which we have to use because Gnoga's in Ada 12, you can include potentially blocking operations in a PO, which is nice, because that restriction was a mistake. So I see no problem with putting these loops into protected operations. Modifying the Ping loop to create a structure of IDs to delete after the ping loop should be trivial. -- Jeff Carter "The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving." Blazing Saddles 36 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gnoga-list mailing list Gnoga-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnoga-list
