TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: rreagan <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:46:06 -0400
Reply-To: Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
From: Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (34 lines)
rreagan wrote:
> > --
> Section 9.5.1[1] states:
>    "protected functions provide concurrent read-only access to the data." (in
> the P.O.)
> and
> Section 9.5.1[4] states:
>    "A new protected action is not started on a protected object while another
>    protected action on the same protected object is underway, unless both
>    actions are the result of a call on a protected function"
> so multiple tasks may be in the same (or multiple) protected function(s) from
> the
> same P.O. at the same time, correct?

Theoretically, yes.  I don't know of any implementations that actually
support this yet.  It was intended to support multiprocessing environments.
On a single processor, there is no real value in supporting concurrent
functions.  When multiprocessing, there is an obvious throughput advantage
to allowing protected functions to run in parallel on the same object.
> Robin P. Reagan - Software Engineer  [log in to unmask]
> SEAKR Engineering, Inc.              v-303.649.1763x10
> 12847 East Peakview Avenue           f-303.649.1326
> Englewood, CO  80011
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -Albert Einstein-

-Tucker Taft   [log in to unmask]
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA