Le 01/06/2012 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:38:45 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky
<dmitry.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01.06.2012 16:26, deadalnix wrote:
Here is what I ended up to think is the best
solution :
synchronized classes exists. By default, they can't be use as parameter
for synchronized(something) .
synchronized(something) will be valid is something provide
opSynchronized(scope delegate void()) or something similar. Think
opApply here. The synchronized statement is rewritten in a call to that
delegate.
Here are the benefit of such an approach :
1/ Lock and unlock are not exposed. You can only use them by pair.
2/ You cannot lock on any object, so you avoid most liquid locks and
don't waste memory.
3/ synchronized classes ensure that a class can be shared and it
internal are protected from concurrent access.
4/ It is not possible possible by default to lock on synchronized
classes's instances. It grant better control over the lock and it is now
clear which piece of code is responsible of it.
5/ The design allow the programmer to grant the permission to lock on
synchronized classes's instances if he/she want to.
6/ It is now possible to synchronize on a broader range of user defined
stuffs.
The main drawback is the same as opApply : return (and break/continue
but it is less relevant for opSynchronized). Solution to this problem
have been proposed in the past using compiler and stack magic.
It open door for stuff like :
ReadWriteLock rw;
synchronized(rw.read) {
}
synchronized(rw.write) {
}
And many types of lock : spin lock, interprocesses locks, semaphores, .
. . And all can be used with the synchronized syntax, and without
exposing locking and unlocking primitives.
What do people think ?
+1. Works for me.
It refines what I believe the shadow cabinet (loosely: me, you, Alex,
Regan Heath and Steven) propose.
Is this really necessary? When is opSynchronized going to be written any
way other than:
_mutex.lock();
scope(exit) _mutex.unlock();
dg();
I'll note that it's easier to forget to lock or unlock if the compiler
isn't enforcing it. You might even naively do this:
_mutex.lock();
dg();
_mutex.unlock(); // not called on exception thrown!
I kind of like the __lock() __unlock() pair that the compiler always
calls both in the right place/way. Yes, you could just leave those
implementations blank, but very unlikely.
Plus, we already have issues with inout and delegates for opApply, this
would have the same issues.
P.S. Removing monitor from non-synced/shared classes would be good
too. As a separate matter.
I think at this point, we should leave it there until we can really
figure out a detailed plan on how to deal with it. It currently affects
all runtime code which does virtual function lookups or interface
lookups, and alignment. We would have to change a lot of compiler and
runtime code to remove it.
A lot of work have to be done, for sure. But concurency is the next big
thing D will have to face IMO. When const/immutable are fixed :D
