Hi Paul, >> 1. I always understood "reentrant" to refer to code or an object that could >> be executed safely by multiple threads or processes. However, the >> ReentrantMutex would only be used for code that is safe for the _same_ >> thread or process to execute concurrently, thus my confusion. Is the name >> "reentrant" appropriate here?
I agree with you that "re-entrant" is a misnomer for this class. Some frameworks use the term "recursive mutex" (i.e. ACE, Boost) for such functionality, although this is still a debatable term for it. >> 2. A couple years back I "simplified" the Mutex class for Windows. As a >> result, it actually works somewhat like the ReentrantMutex. Mea culpa. IMHO, I think it's actually an excellent thing to have it this way. The cost of implementing counted lock acquisition is negligible and the savings in debugging and maintenance time more than outweigh this cost. However this does bring the issue of having possibly different behaviour when porting an application from Windows to other platforms. André _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
