Jp Calderone wrote: > On 14 Jul 2005 05:10:38 -0700, Paul Rubin > <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Basically the current state of art in "threading" programming doesn't >>> include a safe model. General threading programming is unsafe at the >>> moment, and there's nothing to do about that. It requires the developer >>> to carefully add any needed locking by hand. >> >> >> So how does Java do it? Declaring some objects and functions to be >> synchronized seems to be enough, I thought. > > > Multithreaded Java programs have thread-related bugs in them too. So it > doesn't seem to be enough. Like Python's model, Java's is mostly about > ensuring internal interpreter state doesn't get horribly corrupted. It > doesn't do anything for application-level state. For example, the
Hrm... this would suggest the possibility of designing a metaclass, perhaps, that would ensure synchronous access to an object. Perhaps "wrap" the class in another, that gets and releases a mutex on any external get/set access (except, possibly, for a specified list of "asynchronous" data members and methods). This, of course, wouldn't elminate deadlocks, but that's a problem that arises from interaction from multiple objects, rather than within a single one. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
