I asked this via the Google Groups interface a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure
if it made it here.
I am asking again in case the question never made it onto the list.
Has the syntax for synchronized/threaded @things been worked out?
For example:
class Foo is synchronized {
...
}
our method
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:41:06PM -0600, John Drago wrote:
I asked this via the Google Groups interface a few weeks ago, but I'm not
sure if it made it here.
I am asking again in case the question never made it onto the list.
Has the syntax for synchronized/threaded @things been worked
James Mastros skribis 2006-05-31 12:03 (+0100):
I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple things are
happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming, which is exactly the
opposite of what should be implied. Serialized would be a nice name,
except it implies
How about one of these?
==
class Baz {
has $.a is restricted;
has $.b is controlled;
has $.c is unique;
has $.d is shared;
has $.e is queued;
has $.f is token;
...
}
--- John Drago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked this via the Google Groups interface
How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
implicitly hypotheticalized? I'm thinking that a retry exit
statement may be redundant; instead, why not just go with the existing
mechanisms for successful vs. failed block termination, with the minor
modification that when an
How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
implicitly hypotheticalized?
I assume that the atomicness being controlled by some kind of lock on
entry, it also applies to I/O and other side-effecty things that you
can't undo.
--
Hats are no worse for being made by ancient
Thanks to all who have read or replied -
I'm reading the Concurrency POD right now - more questions when I'm done.
John Drago | VP Software Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.precissystems.com
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Smith
James Mastros wrote:
I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple things are
happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming, which is exactly the
opposite of what should be implied. Serialized would be a nice name,
except it implies serializing to a serial format,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
implicitly hypotheticalized? I'm thinking that a retry exit
statement may be redundant; instead, why not just go with the existing
mechanisms for successful vs. failed block termination, with the minor
Daniel Hulme wrote:
How does an atomic block differ from one in which all variables are
implicitly hypotheticalized?
I assume that the atomicness being controlled by some kind of lock on
entry, it also applies to I/O and other side-effecty things that you
can't undo.
The lock on entry
--- John Drago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Mastros wrote:
I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple
things are happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming,
which is exactly the opposite of what should be implied.
Serialized would be a nice name, except
At 11:51 AM +1200 6/1/06, Sam Vilain wrote:
I think the answer lies in the checkpointing references in that
document. I don't know whether that's akin to a SQL savepoint (ie, a
point mid-transaction that can be rolled back to, without committing the
entire transaction) or more like a
12 matches
Mail list logo
