[dmd-concurrency] Vot de hekk is shared good for, anyway?

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2010-01-10 à 22:47, Graham St Jack a écrit :

> I'm happy with things being carefully wrapped and auto-magic. However, surely the message channel (or whatever it is called) object itself will have be shared (and its externally accessible methods synchronized), otherwise we are cheating. We have a object whose sole purpose in life is to be shared by multiple threads, so surely if anything is shared, this one has to be.
> 
> If this is the case, then we need a mechanism to stop "shared" from leaking out into the whole code base.

When your browser requests a web page to a server, it sends messages and receives back replies. But it doesn't need the browser need to have a "shared" object with the server. Instead, you have a socket on each side and both get connected through the operating system's TCP/IP stack auto-magic.

In the same way, a message-passing API, especially one that intends to go beyond threads, doesn't need and shouldn't expose any shared object. That doesn't mean the implementation won't use shared for thread-to-thread communications, but the user of the API shouldn't need to see that.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/