Thanks Cristopher and Kenton!
I will provide a Mutex to the higher levels as you recommend.
Jes.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protob
Simply adding a mutex lock in every accessor wouldn't really make them
thread-safe. Consider:
if (my_message.has_foo()) {
DoSomething(my_message.foo());
}
This is not thread-safe if my_message can be modified in a separate thread
*even if* each accessor locked a mutex, because "foo" could
I'd recommend using an atomic swap to do your updates. So you create
your new version of the PB localy, and then swap it in to the memory
location that is visible to all the other threads. The only real
downside is you stress the heap more, and that is probably
cheaper/simpler (particularly if you
Hi everybody,
we are working on a distributed environment that uses PB, where
different threads will access to the contents of messages that can be
updated at any moment through the network.
I wonder if there is an easy way to transform the (derived) Messages
into a thread-safe version. Maybe th
I forgot to mention that we are generating C++ code in the project.
Jes
On 29 jun, 19:01, Jes wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> we are working on a distributed environment that uses PB, where
> different threads will access to the contents of messages that can be
> updated at any moment through the ne
