From: Yohanes Santoso <ysantoso@...>
Date: 2002-04-01T15:29:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Multithreaded socket code.  Request for Comments

Matt Armstrong <matt@lickey.com> writes:

> "Robert C. Martin" <u.n.c.l.e.b.o.b.@.o.b.j.e.c.t.m.e.n.t.o.r.d.o.t.c.o.m> writes:
> 
> >     @lock.synchronize {@threads << Thread.current}
> >     @lock.synchronize {@threads.delete(Thread.current)}
> >     @lock.synchronize {threads = @threads.dup}
> 
> I don't think you need to synchronize these operations.  For the first
> two, the value returned by Thread.current won't become invalid no
> matter what other threads do.  And I am 90% sure that Array.delete,
> Array.<< and Array.dup are all atomic in Ruby's thread model.

I found out the hard way that Array operations are not atomic. So, the
OP needs to synchronise.

On another front, shouldn't @threads be @@threads (class
variable). Otherwise, the following will have the wrong concept:

s1 = SockService.new
s2 = SockService.new
s1.serve 119 {handle_nntp}
s2.serve 119 {handle_nntp} #will be allowed

YS.