[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