Thu Dec 15 15:16:22 CET 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> Note that transactions provide another conceptually
> simple approach. My prediction is that fine-grain,
> hardware-assisted transactions will largely replace
> locking in conventional systems. But not for a while;
> the comp.arch. researchers have just gotten their
> teeth into it.
If you will humor a Erlang newbie, what exactly is the difference
between a "transaction" and a mutex/critical section? And, if the
difference is negligible, wouldn't introducing a transaction
construct or the other "atomic" ideas mentioned furthered down the
thread, just (re-)introduce the complexity of all the locking madness
Erlang currently shields us from?
The complaints about having to serialize to a gen_server seem odd to
me (again, a newbie :)). Mutexes introduce a similar sort of
serialization (i.e. you have to design carefully for speed/
contention), yet have much more difficult semantics.
Just my $0.02...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the erlang-questions