From: Wilson Bilkovich <wilsonb@...>
Date: 2007-01-19T06:17:33+09:00
Subject: Re: [BLOG] Concurrency models

On 1/18/07, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > They definitely are not. Given that fine-grained locks in library code
> > do not compose, it's going to take some work to make the whole stdlib
> > thread-safe once native threads are available.
>
> What does 'They' refer to in your comment?  The core classes or the
> standard
> library?  Are there non-thread safe methods in the core classes?  I was
> trying to distinguish between the two groups of classes in my comment.
>

I meant the stdlib. The core classes are largely written in C, and
wrapped by various locks (the pieces I have examined, at least).

I'm not claiming the whole stdlib is a farrago of non-thread-safety.
Just that it definitely isn't intended to be a thread-safe toolkit,
and will need attention Before We Are Done.