ORBit thread safe ? was Re: gpilotd & corba

[Eskil Heyn Olsen <deity trinity dbc bib dk>]

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Manish Vachharajani wrote:

> > that so bad as opposed to the risk of threadrelated errors/load of
> > continously spawning threads ? 
> Well is ORBit threads safe?

Dunno, Mike, could you ask Elliot ? Anyways, I plan to let orb methods run
in one thread alone, and the other threads won't do any orb stuff. Thus
from ORBit's point of view, it'll look like it is a single process.

> > notify system), that perhaps should be threaded, or the calls should be
> > declared as oneway (maybe the best approach).
> Probably have the calls be one way.

Cast in stone then.

> What about the portability aspect?  The locks should be generic.  Also

Either we could "pthreads is POSIX, support or die" and use pthread_mutex*
calls for locks, or we could make a more or less redundant wrapper layer
on top on pthreads.

Or a less redundant layer, that eg. had calls like g_list_lock(GList*),
g_list_try_lock(GList*) and g_list_unlock(GList*), which uses a ghashtable
for matching pthreads mutexes with glists (and other g_things). 

Perhaps there already is such a set of methods ? If not, it might be
generic enough for other uses.

> what about switching uids on threads.  We MUST have this for security in

But no can do. uids are still on process level.

(btw, having been bartending 10 hours last night, I think I safely can say
I won't be touching much corba stuff this weekend).

eskil
---