Re: Octave/backend synchronization

[Michael Goffioul]

On Jan 25, 2008 9:24 AM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> | 2) on the octave-side, the only places where you have to put lock/unlock
> | are the builtin DEFUN (in graphics.cc), because these are the only entry
> | points from a user point of view: any code within the graphics system
> | derives from a call to one of these builtin DEFUN. As there aren'y many
> | of them, I found that the maintenance effort was pretty low.
>
> For the scripting language, yes, there wouldn't be many places to
> lock, though anyone adding a new C++ function that accesses graphics
> properties would have to know about locking.

I have the impression that whatever C++ code you would add to octave,
once called, you would always have in your call stack a frame corresponding
to one of the builtin DEFUN of graphics.cc (because this is what the user
has access to). So it would protected anyway.

Nevermind, forget it for the time being.

Michael.