On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:42, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> >> Both these options were discussed in #9155 like tarmo said. Rather >> than Thread#exclusive we could use some specific mutexes so other >> threads can go about their other business. Any takers? > > Of course, as commented in trac, defining a new class isn't atomic, so > it's probably Thread#exclusive or nothing. Are you worried about Thread 1 hits const_missing, starts to load foo.rb Thread 2 references Foo.something, doesn't hit const_missing because Foo is now defined, but not all of the methods have been added ? Nasty :-). Can anything ugly like forcing everyting to be loaded into a temporary module (so that no one else sees it) and then 'uncloaking' when we're finished. Sounds like it would just be over the top compared to just loading everything. Fred > > > Thread#exclusive depends on Thread#critical= which isn't considered > kosher, as a result both are gone from 1.9. > > So, unless I'm missing something we need to have an alternative > Dependencies mode if we want really do anything deterministic with > dependencies and threads? > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
