<div dir="ltr">On 9 July 2013 08:46, Haster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:haster2004@yandex.ru" target="_blank">haster2004@yandex.ru</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is it enough if I cover reading message by mutex and guarantee that I call<br>
bind methods only then I don't call read method?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can't guarantee that, and it sounds difficult (= impossible, probably) to implement because what if you want to do a bind() while the other thread is blocked, reading from the socket?<br>
<br></div><div>Thinking harder about this, I suspect that only a very few limited kinds of concurrent use of a connection can be implemented by managing your own mutexing; to get the full range, there'd have to be very deep reorganisation of the library's structure to use threads internally. Which was an anti-goal when I wrote it initially.<br>
</div><div><br>My recommendation, then, is to never try to share a connection between threads.<br><br></div><div>Tony<br clear="all"></div></div>-- <br>Tony Garnock-Jones<br><a href="mailto:tonygarnockjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">tonygarnockjones@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/" target="_blank">http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/</a>
</div></div>