[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | osiire <osiire@k...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Are unreachable threads garbage collected? |
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:16:29 -0800 (PST)
In <20051204001629.39621.qmail@web34610.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Ker Lutyn <ker527mail@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's my reworking of this example to make the thread go away if the buffered
> channel becomes "unreachable". The strategy is to allocate the channel object
> at the very end and associate a Gc.finalise function with it that syncs an
> event on a kill channel with the thread.
> Does this look like a reasonable design pattern for this?
I think the strategy is reasonable. But the pattern can be more simple.
let make_gc_event v =
let gc_channel = new_channel () in
let gc_send () = sync (send gc_channel ()) in
let finalise _ = ignore (Thread.create gc_send ()) in
Gc.finalise finalise v;
wrap (receive gc_channel)
usage is as follow:
let bc = i, o in
let gc = make_gc_event bc in
let rec loop q =
select [
wrap (receive i) (fun x -> let ... in loop q);
wrap (send o v) (fun _ -> loop q);
gc (fun () -> Printf.printf "killed\n"; flush stdout; ())
]
in
ignore (Thread.create loop q);
bc
----
osiire