On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Quincey Morris <quinceymor...@rivergatesoftware.com> wrote: > > Aren't you missing a [replyQueue setSuspended: NO] in there somewhere? And > if you do that, aren't you then failing to wait for backgroundQueue to > empty?
Yes, sorry. The call to -setSuspended: happens right before -waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished. [replyQueue setSuspended:NO]; [replyQueue waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished]; (Obviously this code isn't copy/pasted from my actual source; it's intended to illustrate the pattern. My actual source has the exact same structure as what I posted, but the specifics of the operations aren't relevant here.) On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stevo Brock <st...@monkey-tools.com> wrote: > What about removing replyQueue altogether, have the background operation add > it's result processing back into backgroundQueue and just wait on > backgroundQueue to finish? Other threads may also be adding operations to backgroundQueue. backgroundQueue is used to serialize my activity (in this example, tallying up totalResult) with other activities. The caller expects this method to be synchronous. That design, however, can be changed. --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
