Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz@chello.at> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
Windows named mutexes do give you exactly this functionality, though as they are kernel objects you don't get the "fast path" options of a roll-your-own mutex.
But I want to show the differences. In my case I simply use the standard" process-local mutex, but wrapping it into a "name-generator".
Consequently my approach gives you a fast-pathed mutex if you need it, without loss of the "named" feature.
Yes, agreed. In practical terms, the only problems with your scheme are: * Ensuring the that these "named" mutexes are correctly destroyed at process termination, if people don't "close" the mutex. Maybe not an issue. * Contention on the map. Ideally we don't want to have any contention for unrelated mutexes. Chris Thomasson has suggested using a global lock-free hashmap for this sort of thing. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk