On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:53:51 +0900 Jean-Philippe André <j...@videolan.org> > said:
[snip] >> Anyway as far as I remember shared objects are not a viable solution until >> we change the calling mechanism (function & data resolution) to be >> thread-safe, rather than locking the entire pool of shared objects for the >> entire duration of a call. > > locking the whole pool means we can do shared objects without a whole tonne of > extra work. as long as all things accessed inside object methods (including > parent classes) are entirely within the code for that object or are already > threadsafe then no extra locks have to be written at all. everything will just > work and it's a massive amount of work saved. having to fine-grain lock > everything manually is just insane and that's why efl is not threadsafe and > never will be because no one is going to go do that. this is why many libs are > not threadsafe. it's a massive amount of work to do and easy to get wrong to > miss an lock or unlock somewhere. having a single locking and unlocking spot > even if it is a "one big fat lock for every shared object" is safer and far > less work. it is unlikely to ever be a real performance issue. I don't care about the performance. This is going to be a deadlock hell. > -- Regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
