On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:23:39 -0200 Felipe Magno de Almeida > <felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com> said: > >> On Dec 4, 2016 10:55 PM, "Jean-Philippe André" <j...@videolan.org> wrote: >> >> Nah I totally agree with Vincent that the error message is cryptic. >> >> 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. >> >> >> Indeed. just like we discussed in Korea. the recursive mutex must go. > > i then invite you to actually implement all the fine-grained locks for every > class and object now and into the future and never to get it wrong. are you > going to do that?
Good point. I'll see what I can do. I would like to implement the multiple loops and threading anyway, with the design we discussed. This seems to be a part of this work. > -- Regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
