Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transactions"
(→Asynchronous functions) |
Colin-adams (Talk | contribs) (Need for synchronous features) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
I think we need to see some examples (well, I do for one). | I think we need to see some examples (well, I do for one). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Need for synchronous features == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I believe the proposal is that the complier should be able to infer all necessary synchronization (and I presume the only keyword will assume importance here). | ||
Revision as of 09:10, 9 April 2007
Discussion of the feasibility and desirability of implementing transactional concurrency in Eiffel.
Contents
Legacy externals
Is blocking all threads and executing legacy externals sufficient to ensure correct operation
Is it possible to check for legacy externals within a transaction at runtime
Implementation performance
Performance of software transactional memory. Current implementations of software transactional memory.
Asynchronous features
Is there a need for synchronous features
Language keywords
Use a word to define a transaction or a non-transaction
Examples please
I think we need to see some examples (well, I do for one).
Need for synchronous features
I believe the proposal is that the complier should be able to infer all necessary synchronization (and I presume the only keyword will assume importance here).
