On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Jeff Sturm wrote:
> Mo DeJong wrote:
> > What is a "thin lock"? Did you mean spin lock? I don't see what is
> > wrong with a good old mutex, but putting one in means we would
> > need to require a thread safe version of Tcl. I don't really
> > like the "use the JVM to do locking" hacks in there now. Using
> > the JVM to do locking in a JVM finalizer seems like a really
> > bad idea.
>
> Thin locks are usually performed in user space, i.e. without help from
> the OS kernel. Spin locks are an example. A mutex might work, but
> isn't really portable either... depends on the OS.
Ahh, but Tcl provides a portable locking layer when compiled with
threads support. That is what I am sugesting we use for the mutex.
If we require Tcl thread support, we can get rid of the Java
monitor used in JAVA_LOCK. Anything to avoid calling a JNI
method is a plus in my book.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------
The TclJava mailing list is sponsored by Scriptics Corporation.
To subscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word SUBSCRIBE as the subject.
To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the subject.
To send to the list, send email to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
An archive is available at http://www.mail-archive.com/tcljava@scriptics.com
