Re^4: Thread::RWLock for 5.8 threads ?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Thread::RWLock for 5.8 threads ? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 24, 2005 at 17:51 UTC
And then I need to figure out where/how to CPAN it. Yep. And there lies another minefield. You'll see that I chose to use `threads::RWLock` as a working title. That would get frowned upon by the "powers that be", because it has a all-lower first element to the name, but quite frankly, continuing to stick threads-related modules in the `Thread::*` namespace just invites further and continued confusion over what works with what and why. Like Perl's threads need another barrier to use. But then I guess the "powers-that-be" that makes these stupid decisions are probably all hardcore 'we don't need no stinkin' threads'-people anyway. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Thread::RWLock for 5.8 threads ? by renodino (Curate) on Oct 24, 2005 at 18:13 UTC
Yeah, namespace is an issue. In the interest of GOWI, I'll probably bury it inside the Thread::Queue::Duplex bundle. Tho maybe "Thread::Resource::ReadWrite" might be a good namespace, so anything else related to sharing resources among threads has a root. I'm already considering an alternate locking algorithm that permits upgrading read to write locks, or downgrading writes to reads; as currently implemented, T::RWLock requires a reader to unlock before it could get a write lock.	[reply]