On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:48:22 +0100 "Inoussa OUEDRAOGO" <inouss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > A discussion started a month or two ago about the thread safety issue > concerning XML DOM, issue due to avl_tree.pp implementation. > > There were 3 propositions : > > 1 - Inoussa OUEDRAOGO : > Another proposition is to introduce a base avl class say > TBaseAVLTree that defines two abstract virtual methods "NewNode()" > and "FreeNode()" and then define : > - TAVLTree : that _do not_ use a node mem manager, then > thread safe. > - TAVLManagedTree that uses a node mem manager provided in > the constructor. > The developer using this one is _aware_ of the thread > safety issue and can > then provide a thread safe node mem manager for an > instance exposed to more than one thread while using the default not > thread safe node mem manager for a thread local instance > > 2 - Marc Weustink : > I'm pro having a manged and an unmanaged avltree. One (big) > disadvantage > of the current implementation (with a shared node manager > for all trees) > is that you cannot add custom derived treenodes since they > will be released in the pool too. > Mattias Gärtner : > I think too, that we need a fast, lightweight tree and a > slower, but customizable tree. Something like TFPList and TList. One > without virtual > methods and one with virtual methods and definable node > class >[...] > No matter what solution will be choosed, a thread-safe implementation > of AVL tree is a must, IMHO. Yes. 1+2 sounds compatible. Will you provide a patch? Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
