From: William Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-19 14:00:01
>From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
>To use an analogy that's been in use for decades to save human lives:
>At large construction sites where various electrical work will be going
>on, there is a shutoff which can be locked _open_ simply by putting a
>common padlock on it. The "hole" for the padlock to secure is large enough
>for many locks. When an electrician comes to work and needs the power
>killed, s/he simply adds his/her personal lock. When done, one removes
>one's own lock and leaves. The power cannot be restored until ALL the
>locks are gone.
This analogy is flawed. Given your description the "hole" would be the
mutex, the padlocks would be the scoped_locks and the electricians would be
threads. Mutexes, by definition, don't allow multiple threads to have
access to a shared resource. Though this synchronization scheme may be
valid, it's not analogous to what's being discussed here.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk