I did not realize that. I've always followed the mantra taught to me about
not using
them in POs. That's really neat. Should we go ahead
and add a delete loop to it to prevent the potential for someone to start a
connection
between the close and the delete protected calls? Or do you think it will
be alright?
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Jeffrey R. Carter <jrcar...@acm.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
