[Haskell-cafe] Concurrency best practices?

[Annette Bieniusa]

Hi Wren,

I am maintaining Twilight STM, and it seems that it might indeed solve your problem. We also use it for logging, locks, and other advanced STM stuff like inconsistency repair.

If you are interested, let me know. There is a new version coming up soon, with new features and improved implementation.

- Annette



Am 05.02.2011 um 11:42 schrieb Sebastian Fischer:

> Hi Wren, 
> 
> maybe Twilight STM is for you: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/twilight-stm
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:46 PM, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:
> So I'm working on a project that uses STM to run a lot of things in parallel without the headaches of locks. So far it's working beautifully, STM rocks. But there's one snag...
> 
> Sometimes I need those threads to do some IO like printing logging info. I'd like to make these IO chunks atomic with respect to one another so that the logging output isn't garbage. Since I'm using STM everywhere else, I'd love to use it for this too (instead of mixing STM and non-STM concurrency) except you can't embed IO in STM.
> 
> I could just use STM vars as locks to force the atomicity, but locks are ugly and bug-prone. So what's the current best practice for doing this kind of thing?
> 
> -- 
> Live well,
> ~wren
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110205/7807c92b/attachment.htm>