From stt@dsd Thu Sep 5 19:05:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: from houdini.i2ada (houdini.camb.inmet.com) by dsd.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24168; Thu, 5 Sep 96 19:05:37 EDT Received: by houdini.i2ada (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA19873; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:04:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:04:14 -0400 From: stt@dsd (Tucker Taft) Message-Id: <199609052304.TAA19873@houdini.i2ada> To: ada9xmrt@dsd.camb.inmet.com, dewar@gnat.com Subject: Re: Shared Variables in Shared_Passive? !topic Shared Variables in Shared_Passive? !reference RM95-9.10, RM95-E.2.1 !reference 96-5647.a Laurent Guerby 96-8-23 !reference 96-5649.a Anthony Gargaro 96-8-24 !reference 96-5656.a Robert A Duff 96-8-27 !keywords synchronization !reference 96-5650.a Robert Dewar 96-8-25 !reference 96-5658.a Robert Dewar 96-8-28 !reference 96-5662.a Robert A Duff 96-8-29 !reference 96-5666.a Robert Dewar 96-8-30 !reference 96-5673.a Anthony Gargaro 96-9-1 !reference as: 96-5674.a Robert Dewar 96-9-2 !reference as: 96-5679.a Anthony Gargaro !reference 96-5682.a Robert Dewar 96-9-4 !from Tucker Taft 96-09-05 <> !discussion Rather than treating an RPC as any special kind of synchronization, I would rather treat an RPC like a normal subprogram call. In particular, this means that the normal "sequentiality" between a caller and a callee within a single task would apply between the caller and the remote callee. In 9.10 terms, this means that the actions occurring as part of executing the remote subprogram body are "sequential" with the actions occurring in the calling task. It is as though they are both part of the same task. -Tuck