Stef, Dolphin's weak collections are typically (I suspect allways) thread safe, which I have attributed to the constant struggle with finalization - it seems natural (to me at least) for them to be protected. Some quick browsing leads me to think that this is not true in Pharo. Am I missing something, or do we also need some thread-safe weaklings?
Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Thread-safe collections I would really like to see some packages getting implementing around the idea of a couple of robust and well tested thread safe collections. Stef On Oct 23, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > Sig, > > One can always construct examples in which protecting the entire > loop is the better option. That's not the scenario of interest. > Just as shared queues are useful, shared sets and dictionaries have > value for sporadic access scenarios. Doing it your way, everyone > writes their own incompletely protected (read buggy/dangerous) ad- hoc > implementations of these common collections. > > I favor having solid implementations that are complete and as correct > as we can get them, leaving people to optimize as you suggest when it > makes sense to do so. > > Bill > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pharo- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Thread-safe collections > > 2009/10/23 Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]>: >> Hello all, >> >> I just looked around for thread-safe collections, and found nothing >> that looks like a shared dictionary. The squeak-dev archives contain >> the obligatory newbie posts (wanting all collections to be thread >> safe) and the expected replies, some of which are overly dismissive >> of the idea. Something that protects things like >> #at:ifAbsentPut: and friends is _really_ useful. Am I missing an >> existing implementation? >> > > Imo, there's only one shared collection which is useful - shared > queue. :) If you need more kinds of thread-safe collections, it > probably indicating that the concurrent code (or model) which you > designed is in pretty bad shape. > > Just compare two following snippets: > > 1 to: 100 do: [:i | collection threadSafeAt: i put: something]. > > and: > > semaphore critical: [ 1 to: 100 do: [:i | collection at: i put: > something] ]. > > What you think, which one is better? > > >> Bill >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
