On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org> wrote:
dave:
If it were me, I wouldn't label anything "unsafe," since presumably even the push you're calling unsafe is as threadsafe as int, and it seems like the right prefix for the nonblocking one is "try_". I might use ("push", "atomic_push," "try_push") or if the use of the single-threaded version is rare enough, ("single_thread_push"/"serial_push", "push", "try_push").
"atomic" does have some a different meaning then what is implemented (afaict, `linearizable' would be the correct term).
i'd like to avoid the name "try_", because all push operations may actually fail. "push" and "push_unsafe" can fail if ringbuffer (aka spsc_queue) space is exhausted or memory allocation fails (queue/stack). "push_nonblocking" may fail, if the internal memory pool is exhausted.
"single_thread_push" might cause some misunderstanding, as people may think that it is about a `single producer', not about a `single-threaded use'. so it is really a "thread_unsafe_push", as incorrect use may corrupt the internal data structure.
so maybe "thread_unsafe_push", "nonblocking_push" and "push"?
if there is resistance for unsafe_push, I propose push_unsynchronized (or unsynchronized_push). -- gpd