On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Warren Lynn <wrn.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:50:10 PM UTC-4, red...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> if you do it as a lock, then readers must block writers (think it >> through). Clojure's reference types + immutable datastructures and the >> views on perception that underlay them are strongly opposed to readers >> interfering with writers. >> >> > > Why is it so? Does not the reader just get a snapshot copy of the atom state > and does not care who writes to the original atom? If a lock is needed, it > is only needed for a very short commit time (cannot read when a writer is > committing), but not during the whole "swap!" function. That still sounds a > lot better than re-try to me.
Finish the thought, what happens when there is "contention", a thread reads then writes before you acquire the lock to commit. You can try and making locking work, but you'll just up with CAS based on a lock > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good— Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
