On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 17:46 +0100, Mark Ellis wrote: [snip]
> > MS buils these interfaces on top of the Component Object Model (COM) so > > C++ would be a natural fit, but if you implement it in C for easier Ruby > > bindings that's fine. Just add "this" (or "self" :-) as first parameter. > > (I would have implemented the original librapi2 in C++ > > I'm glad you didn't, I probably wouldn't have bothered fiddling with > it :) Great, because I'm very happy that you fiddle with SynCE! > > if it wasn't > > because I hoped that language bindings would be easier with a C > > interface.) > > [snap] > > Locking (per session) should really be done inside the RAPI calls, > not > > outside. > > > > Yes, I think each context needs internal locking, but I'm not sure how > this should be done. Can we just use pthread mutexes ? Yes pthread mutexes is the way to go. Essentially all socket access in a function should be within a single "critical section" protected by a mutex. If you want some autofoo exercising you could figure out how to build two versions of librapi2, where librapi2_r.so require pthreads and use mutexes to be thread-safe. Best regards, David Eriksson, http://www.divideandconquer.se/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge _______________________________________________ SynCE-Devel mailing list SynCE-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synce-devel
