Re: re-enterancy ...

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Alex,

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 15:57, Alex Hornby wrote:
> The only reason people put up with it is that the alternative is to have
> your process not respond to incoming calls when making an outgoing call
> - not good in a server.

	Naturally.

> The solution tends to be lots of locks - which means lots of dead locks
> until you get them right. I'm not sure there is a middle ground.

	We can do better; we can push a re-enterancy guard allowing only
incoming processing on a certain connection - that may help a lot; or
simply blocking re-enterancy altogether for more trivial cases.

	Regards,

		Michael.

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