SYNC[RONIZED] is much better than CRITICAL. Still, the only
problem with it that it used a different term than our other
Harbour functions targeting the same feature (hb_mutex*()).
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.10.31., at 17:12, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Java uses the keyword "mutexed" which IMO t
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi Mindaugas,
> one more proposition: SYNC[HRONIZED]
I though about it at the beginning but there is one problem.
We already have SYNC METHODS for xbase++ compatibility. This
mechanism has one side effect which is xbase++ compatible:
before thre
Java uses the keyword "mutexed" which IMO tells it best
that a given object is automatically protected by a mutex.
I didn't know about it. Can you show the whole syntax?
Hi,
I do not know Java well. I've wrote a single applet in my life. It has
method:
public synchronized void selectCla
Pls. don't make any changes in this statments till mondey.
I mus prepare example.
Regards,
Marek Horodyski
___
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Hi Przemek,
Then we should probably also have hb_criticalsection*()
functions instead of hb_mutex*() to not use two different
terminologies in different parts of Harbour.
I do not agree. The internal synchronization mechanism used
on low level is our own choice which should be tuned to
best
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi Viktor,
> Then we should probably also have hb_criticalsection*()
> functions instead of hb_mutex*() to not use two different
> terminologies in different parts of Harbour.
I do not agree. The internal synchronization mechanism used
on low level is o
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose. To me proposed
"CRITICAL" looks like a way to avoid getting the execution
to the same code section twice. For example I would use it
for a very simple purpose (I already use similar technique
there currently), to avoid starting my small calculator
applet twi
Then we should probably also have hb_criticalsection*()
functions instead of hb_mutex*() to not use two different
terminologies in different parts of Harbour.
Critical is a programming terminology from a lower level
perspective (I wouldn't want to elaborate on the possible
roots of the term, but
Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
CRITICAL FUNCTION | PROCEDURE probably is quite easy
to understand term in current days.
Opinions?
I like it, it immediately made me think of "critical sections", and
when I looked them up on Wikipedia it said:
"In concurrent programming a critical section is a pi
We shouldn't be in sync with C# terminology at all.
It's a completely different product.
If we have MUTEX (== lock in C#) and SEMAPHORE
in Harbour, this is IMO fine. These are pretty well
known names. "lock" is IMO very generic, can mean
many things.
I we are to support mutex/semaphore with
wide
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Saulius Zrelskis wrote:
Hi Saulius,
> > CRITICAL FUNCTION | PROCEDURE probably is quite easy
> > to understand term in current days. If you do not like
> > it then instead of creating sth new like MUTEX FUNCTION |
> > PROCEDURE I'd prefer to use MONITOR FUNCTION | PROCEDURE
>
Hi Przemek,
>
> CRITICAL FUNCTION | PROCEDURE probably is quite easy
> to understand term in current days. If you do not like
> it then instead of creating sth new like MUTEX FUNCTION |
> PROCEDURE I'd prefer to use MONITOR FUNCTION | PROCEDURE
> but I do not know how it will look for native Engli
Hi Przemek,
It's much older term then whole MS history :-)
There is also different name for such functions:
MONITOR but who knows it in current days?
How many people have heard sth about ADA or LINDA?
I'm afraid not too much and it's really sad :-(
People like to hear about *new* XYZ "technology
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi Viktor,
> This looks good to me, but the name CRITICAL
> to me doesn't really seem to imply the underlying
> functionality, it also sounds a bit Windows-like,
> so if possible, I'd suggest some other name.
> Like MUTEX FUNC|PROC.
It's much older term
Hi Przemek,
This looks good to me, but the name CRITICAL
to me doesn't really seem to imply the underlying
functionality, it also sounds a bit Windows-like,
so if possible, I'd suggest some other name.
Like MUTEX FUNC|PROC.
As for making hb_mutexCreate() a special function
exception allowed in S
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Pritpal Bedi wrote:
Hi Pritpal,
> CRITICAL PROC p() is the easiest way.
It depends on context. There are situations where it cannot be used
as mutex replacement - you will end with mutex simulation using
critical function and conditional variable.
> Can it be implemented in
Hello Przemek
Przemyslaw Czerpak-2 wrote:
>
> I will want to introduce two extensions for MT mode.
>
> 1. allow to use hb_mutexCreate() as static variable initialization.
>
>If we unblock using hb_mutexCreate() as static variable initializer
>(now we can use only fully optimized funct
Hi All,
I will want to introduce two extensions for MT mode.
1. allow to use hb_mutexCreate() as static variable initialization.
It should help in writing MT code which have to use mutexes from
program startup and there is a problem with initializing them.
I added hb_threadOnce() functio
18 matches
Mail list logo
