From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2007-01-19T02:11:36+09:00
Subject: Re: [BLOG] Concurrency models


On Jan 18, 2007, at 11:19 AM, pat eyler wrote:

> The primary discussion in rubinius' case is about how concurrency will
> be implemented internally -- e.g.,  how do you make arrays thread  
> safe?
> STM seems to be the leading candidate for what will be working under
> the covers.

Ah.  That makes it much clearer.  Thanks.

Does this mean that there is already an implicit understanding that some
methods in the core Ruby classes are inherently thread safe? If so are
*all* core methods thread safe?  Is that by design or accident? I doubt
that the entire standard library is thread safe but perhaps large  
parts are?

This is the sort of thing that should probably be quite clear in any
written specification of Ruby.

I'm just thinking out loud.  With the expanding number of Ruby  
implementations
it now becomes more important to make these sorts of assumptions  
explicit
rather than being implicitly defined by the behavior of the original
'primary' Ruby implementation.

Gary Wright