Subject: |
Re: lock ownership enforcement in OO design |
From: |
Kay-Uwe Kasemir <[email protected]> |
To: |
EPICS core-talk <[email protected]> |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:22:10 -0400 |
Hi Jeff:
Negatives: runtime instead of compile time detection
I really liked the original idea of passing the guard references for
exactly this reason.
Anything you can catch at compile time is good.
Huge negative.
Positives: Interfaces are simpler to look at, and more efficient
too (no passing of guard references)
The omitted guard reference is just one argument,
and of course now you might consider adding a
"don't forget that you need to hold the mutex"
comment to each affected method.
If correct, neat, efficient are important in that very order,
the original approach handled it very well.
-Kay
- References:
- lock ownership enforcement in OO design Jeff Hill
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: lock ownership enforcement in OO design Eric Norum
- Next:
Re: lock ownership enforcement in OO design Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
<2007>
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: lock ownership enforcement in OO design Andrew Johnson
- Next:
SoftIocMain.cpp Ralph Lange
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
<2007>
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|