On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 06:59 -0700, Justin Ross wrote: > ... > I think I don't understand what you're saying. I don't need locking > to modify objects (queues for instance) in the container > serialization context. That's the point: code I inject there is only > ever executed in sequence by the container event loop.
But that's only true in a single threaded environment, and in that case it's also true you don't really need to inject either, because there can be no actual concurrent execution going on. So what you say is true for container, but not for any more complex set up. I thought we were trying to put together a more unified proposal which would be usable in those too. BTW: An import point I failed to make clear before: Nothing in my proposal stops you from *also* having an inject that is scoped to a container (or in fact any other object if you can figure out its serialisation requirements) - I just don't think "container" will be all that useful. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
