On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Nick Zitzmann <n...@chronosnet.com> wrote: > With NS(Recursive)Lock, this isn't difficult:
Then why bother with @synchronized? Don't fix what isn't broke. > OK, now what is the best way to do this using @synchronized instead of an > NSLock? The getter method is obvious, but the setter isn't. My first thought > was something like this: You take a lock (or a @synchronized block) out on an object, not an ivar slot. Therefore, locking on the value of the ivar doesn't make sense; your thread might get interrupted within the @synchronized block *after* it's reassigned the value of the ivar. Then when the new thread tries to enter the @synchronized block, it will be taking out a lock on a *different object* (the one pointed to by the new ivar value), and the world ends. Since you're using a setter, you need to take out the lock on a different object. You might be able to take it out on self (a la Java synchronization), or you might have to create a separate dummy NSObject on which to take out the lock. And we've now come full-circle to the ivarLock you had in your original implementation. --Kyle Sluder _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
