[interfacekit] Re: Autolock (fwd)

> ------ Forwarded Message: ------
> From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <Waldemar.Kornewald@xxxxxx>
> 
> Hi,
> I just finished the new Autolock.h. I hope it is error-free (did not test 
> it). :)
> If you think it looks okay, I will commit it. Of course, I will try the  test
> app in our repository before actually committing it. ;)
> Any volunteers to write a test app for the new autolock (or extend the
> current one)? I have no time for this, sorry (too low priority on my  task
> list ;).

I'm sorry that I didn't earlier find the time to comment on this issue,
but anyway, it's not too late.

1) BAutolock is a stupid simple class to be used for simple purposes
2) whenever you notice a BAutolock somelock(somevar); at the
 beginning of a function, it is save to assume that all data access inside the 
function is locked
3) you need some special locking inside the Kernel, and want to use BLocker
 and a heavily changed BAutolock. I don't like that idea. Kernel code should be
clean and fast. perhaps putting a template for an kernel counterpart for BLocker
inte the util directory would be the way to go (simple benaphore implementation
as templare perhaps)
4) I don't think that extending the functionality of BAutolock in *any* way is 
a good 
 idea. It was a simple solution for simple problems, and it should stay that 
way.
5) I  don't conisder it to be good to put confusion on users by adding 
functions like 
 SetTo and UnSet into the BAutolock
6) BAutolock has a very simple purpose in life: scope-based lock management.
 It should stay that way.

Please refrain from turning BAutoLocker into BAutoLockerAndMore

Don't get me wrong. As you need such functionality, you need to write
something. But please keep LockerHelper.h

regards
Marcus

Other related posts: