On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:50 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > 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.
Sorry - I'm not clear on what change that implies... could you put in a code snippet like the one you started with to illustrate? _______________________________________________ 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/
