On Mar 6, 2011, at 13:30:14, Jeremy Gale wrote: >>> Would it be worth it for me to try ensuring all Apple Event calls and Growl >>> calls are protected by a @synchronized block with a single semaphore even >>> though they may be on different threads? >> >> Either that or do all such accesses on the main thread. The result is the >> same: Your main thread will be blocked until the reply comes back, which >> will be pretty quickly for Growl and probably a few seconds for iTunes. >> >> For debugging, I'd say go for it, but for release, you'll need to do better >> than that. If serializing events and their replies works, then move the >> EyeTunes-access code into a subprocess and communicate with it via DO. > > I'm obviously fairly out of my element here, but why do you say it wouldn't > be good enough?
Hanging (blocking the main thread) for several seconds is never good enough. That'll happen either way because if you do some iTunes access on a background thread, a Growl access on the main thread will be blocked waiting for the iTunes access to finish. > What would the difference be with it being in a subprocess - it would have > it's own reply port and so no replies blocking each other? Yes, and your main app wouldn't be blocked for several seconds to for your DO version of the reply to come in from the subprocess. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
