On Mar 8, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Quincey Morris wrote: > On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:18 , CoGe - Tamas Nagy wrote: > >> I should subclass NSMutableArray because I had a project which used >> NSMutableArray (calls) before, but was not thread safe. Anyway, I can't >> really understand why it would be _really_ better to implement just >> accessors, but maybe you could explain it a bit more? > > Well, slap my head if I'm missing your intention, but I don't see how having > an *atomically* safe NSMutableArray helps at all. As soon as anyone in any > thread writes: > > for (NSInteger i = 0; i <= atomicallySafeArray.count; i++) { > id object = [atomicallySafeArray objectAtIndex: i]; > ... > } > > or any such construct that contains 2+ references to the array that might see > a different state of the array over time, then the code is broken and not > thread safe. This is also broken: > > for (id object in atomicallySafeArray) > … > > for the separate but related reason that fast enumeration will fail if the > array mutates. > > Also, implementing the accessors won't solve either of these problems. > > Thread safety does *not* come from atomicity. Conversely, in many cases > atomicity has no value whatsoever -- because thread safety is what's really > required.
And this is why atomic-by-default is a misfeature. Slower code that contributes to a false impression of thread-safety. --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: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com