Re: [g-a-devel]Re: Gail Range strangeness ...

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Michael Meeks wrote:

>         * Registry:
>                 * async event pushing

mmm, the notifications are oneways already, is that not good enough?

I am frankly surprised that we should see much reentrancy here, do you
understand the triggering conditions yet?  I would only expect
reentrancy if an event notification caused a subsequent change in the
listener lists, which I think is quite uncommon... perhaps I missing
some really common case here?

>                 * max buffering handling on clients - to kill
>                   non-responding clients.
> 
>         If we don't implement the 2nd we'll end up with the 'Gconf issue'
> nailing us - so that's quite important.



>         Also - we should really use the re-enterant list code in cspi/ what is
> your preferred way to expose it ? we could have a libspi/spi-private.h
> that cspi used internally - there seems no shame there, and I could
> split them out into libspi/spi-utils.c or somesuch - howabout that ?

I'm not convinced that we should put this in cspi since cspi will never
be called from multiple threads in the same process space, nor will cspi
data be shared between processes... so I don't see the need.

-Bill

>         Regards,
> 
>                 Michael.
> 
> --
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot