Concurrent Futures
Joshua Gargus
schwa at fastmail.us
Mon Oct 29 21:40:34 UTC 2007
On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> Yes we do, but what prevents others from implementing own locking
> semantics based on direct message sends (not futures)?
What prevents me from using FFI to allocate memory that isn't managed
by the garbage collector? Nothing, of course. But if I create a
memory leak in this way, it's silly to blame the garbage collector.
I think the analogy is clear, but I'll be explicit... if you
circumvent a future-based concurrency mechanism by implementing
locking mechanisms, then it is silly to blame the futures for the
deadlock that you've created.
Cheers,
Josh
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|