On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:59 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: > I think it's a bad idea because it makes the lock scope ambiguous. If > I've got a block with an OsLock at the top, I don't want it to be > possible that anywhere in that block is not holding the lock (the > reverse bug from the one that bit you).
More exactly, the problem is that whether and where the lock is held is not determined by the static structure of the code. That is what OsLock was designed to allow, and OsLock::release() violates that. Within that context, I can replace ::release with OsUnLock with only a slight loss of efficiency, and have the lock structure be statically determined. With that structure, gotchas are still possible, but much less so than with manual locking. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
