Re: re-enterancy ...

[Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>]

Hi Michael,

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 15:40, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> 	I remember you having very fixed views on adding re-enterancy guards to
> client code; as in "Don't add a non-standard method" - and yet; having
> poked at the spec there seems no standard way to do this.

	No, I was opposed to adding a non-standard IDL keyword ...

> 	I was hoping that the CORBA_Object_set_policy_overrides thing would
> work - but that's going to suck for concurrent users of the same object
> handle (a common scenario with async / threaded invocations).
> 
> 	So - I'm back to:
> 
> 	ORBit_small_push/pop_renterancy_guard (ORBitSmallGuard *);
> 
> 	of some sort; with per cnx/impl/etc. settings.
> 
> 	To re-cap this is the _client side_ phenomenon of uncontrolled
> re-enterancy we're trying to stop.

	Sounds fine to me. Although, I haven't given any real thought to it :-)

Cheers,
Mark.