[squeak-dev] WeakArray and use of weak collections.
Igor Stasenko
siguctua at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 17:44:44 UTC 2008
On 25/02/2008, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> It would be better for per-instance access to locking on weak collections
> (like WeakRegistry does). For the moment, my #critical: works for us (was
> previously no access to the semaphore for that on WeakArray class).
>
Yes, that's what i meant, its better to have per-instance access lock,
so locking single weakarray instance does not prevents from working
with another.
> Stress is definitely the word (for working out what was going wrong!).
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of Bill
> > Schwab
> > Sent: 25 February 2008 4:20 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: RE: [squeak-dev] WeakArray and use of weak collections.
> >
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > My simple-minded view of this is that anything with Shared or Weak in
> > the name must be thread-safe. The weak collections are manipulated by
> > at least two threads, the caller and the weakling cleanup thread.
> >
> > Thanks for stress testing this!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2 at ...> wrote:
> > If you can think of a better way of blocking if finalization is in
> > progress...
> > only WeakRegistry has its own protection semaphore at present. (uses
> > WeakKeyDictionary, rather than Identity, oddly).
> >
> >
> > Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> > University of Florida
> > Department of Anesthesiology
> > PO Box 100254
> > Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
> >
> > Email: bschwab at anest.ufl.edu
> > Tel: (352) 846-1285
> > FAX: (352) 392-7029
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|