From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T23:26:54+09:00
Subject: Re: How to overload Object's methods automagicaly?

S.Z. wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:

>> I did already.  Every scenario where at least two method calls on
>> the same or multiple objects have to be atomic with regard to other
>> threads' activities.
> Below you have mentioned Monitor#synchronized(), that is just a
> contradiction.

Where is this a contradiction?

>> You have that feature already with Mutex#synchronized and
>> Monitor#synchronized.  There's also a variant as mixin (see doc ref
>> below).
> Yes I have. But I dislike both. I know a better solution only for
> scenarios where my Sync class can be applied. But I am looking for the
> others...

What's your problem with these?  Why do you dislike them?  Why can't you
use them to implement your Sync class?

>> So you're using Java's delegation approach
> Yes, I do the same with Ruby.
>
>> You don't need to create that on your own.  It's already there
> Look at MonitorMixin example:
>
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/monitor/rdoc/classes/MonitorMixin.html
> Is not this an errorprone code? I need a better sync mechanism that
> defines "producer" and "consumer" and has the correct zyncronization
> built in.

If you're in a producer consumer scenario use a Queue.
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/thread/rdoc/classes/Queue.html

Seriously, I really don't know why you think you have to cook something
completely new while there is lots of stuff that seems to be doing what
you need.  Maybe it's just a language issue but I have the feeling that
you always write at most half of what you think.  That makes it really
hard to follow this thread.

Cheers

    robert