Bug #7097

Thread locals don't work inside Enumerator

Added by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

[ruby-core:47790]
Status:Closed
Priority:Normal
Assignee:Koichi Sasada
Category:-
Target version:2.0.0
ruby -v:ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-09-25 trunk 37032) [x86_64-darwin12.2.0] Backport:

Description

I set a thread local outside an Enumerator. The Enumerator runs inside the same thread where I set the local. I would expect the thread local to be available since I am in the same thread, but it is not.

Here is a test that shows the problem:

require 'minitest/autorun'

class ThreadLocalBreaks < MiniTest::Unit::TestCase
def test_thread_local_in_enumerator
Thread.current[:foo] = "bar"

thread, value = Enumerator.new { |y|
  y << [Thread.current, Thread.current[:foo]]
}.next

assert_equal Thread.current, thread       # passes
assert_equal Thread.current[:foo], value  # fails

end
end

thread_locals.patch Magnifier (2.68 KB) Aaron Patterson, 10/03/2012 03:47 AM

thread_variables.patch Magnifier (8.62 KB) Aaron Patterson, 10/26/2012 07:19 AM

thread_variables.patch Magnifier (9.43 KB) Aaron Patterson, 10/27/2012 02:40 AM

History

#1 Updated by Motohiro KOSAKI almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Koichi Sasada

I guess it's a side effect to use Fiber in Enumerator internal.

ko1: what do you think?

#2 Updated by Anonymous almost 2 years ago

  • File noname added

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:05:17AM +0900, kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI).

Status changed from Open to Assigned
Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)

I guess it's a side effect to use Fiber in Enumerator internal.

Yes, it is. I don't know why Fibers impact thread locals, but I hope
this test demonstrates how it can cause problems.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#3 Updated by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago

  • File deleted (noname)

#4 Updated by Motohiro KOSAKI almost 2 years ago

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Aaron Patterson
tenderlove@ruby-lang.org wrote:

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:05:17AM +0900, kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI).

Status changed from Open to Assigned
Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)

I guess it's a side effect to use Fiber in Enumerator internal.

Yes, it is. I don't know why Fibers impact thread locals, but I hope
this test demonstrates how it can cause problems.

Thread local variable is pretty misleading name. In fact, ruby only have
a fiber local variable. i.e. Thread.current[:foo] is to write fiber
local variable.

Using 'Thread' class is a just historical reason, IMHO. (and I completely agree
it's pretty misleading)

#5 Updated by Motohiro KOSAKI almost 2 years ago

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Aaron Patterson
tenderlove@ruby-lang.org wrote:

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:05:17AM +0900, kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI).

Status changed from Open to Assigned
Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)

I guess it's a side effect to use Fiber in Enumerator internal.

Yes, it is. I don't know why Fibers impact thread locals, but I hope
this test demonstrates how it can cause problems.

Thread local variable is pretty misleading name. In fact, ruby only have
a fiber local variable. i.e. Thread.current[:foo] is to write fiber
local variable.

Using 'Thread' class is a just historical reason, IMHO. (and I completely agree
it's pretty misleading)

see also:

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/1717
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5750

#6 Updated by Koichi Sasada almost 2 years ago

(2012/10/02 3:12), Aaron Patterson wrote:

I guess it's a side effect to use Fiber in Enumerator internal.
Yes, it is. I don't know why Fibers impact thread locals, but I hope
this test demonstrates how it can cause problems.

Enumerator uses Fiber to keep a control flow in internal.

Now thread local variables are fiber locals. I agree it is confusing.
But I'm not sure how to solve it.

One idea is:

  • Define: Thread#[] -> Thred#current_fiber#[]
  • Add: Thread#truly_thread_local_get(key)
    and Thread#truly_thread_local_set(key, val)

    (of course, truly_... is temporal name)

    // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#7 Updated by Koichi Sasada almost 2 years ago

(2012/10/02 8:22), SASADA Koichi wrote:

One idea is:

  • Define: Thread#[] -> Thred#current_fiber#[]
  • Add: Thread#truly_thread_local_get(key) and Thread#truly_thread_local_set(key, val)

(of course, truly_... is temporal name)

Another idea:

Add an option to derive Fiber local storage at a Fiber creation.

For example:

 Thread[:foo] = :bar
 Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
   Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
 end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#8 Updated by Koichi Sasada almost 2 years ago

(2012/10/02 8:32), SASADA Koichi wrote:

Add an option to derive Fiber local storage at a Fiber creation.

Sorry, derive' is not a correct word. I want to sayshare'.

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#9 Updated by Anonymous almost 2 years ago

  • File noname added

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:32:51AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

(2012/10/02 8:22), SASADA Koichi wrote:

One idea is:

  • Define: Thread#[] -> Thred#current_fiber#[]
  • Add: Thread#truly_thread_local_get(key) and Thread#truly_thread_local_set(key, val)

(of course, truly_... is temporal name)

I prefer this solution. I want a way to set true thread locals.

Another idea:

Add an option to derive Fiber local storage at a Fiber creation.

For example:

Thread[:foo] = :bar
Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
  Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

I think the "true thread local" solution is better than this because I
can use it with existing fiber based code. If a third party library
uses Fibers, and I want thread locals, it would not be possible with
this solution.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#10 Updated by Koichi Sasada almost 2 years ago

(2012/10/02 9:42), Aaron Patterson wrote:

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:32:51AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

(2012/10/02 8:22), SASADA Koichi wrote:

One idea is:

  • Define: Thread#[] -> Thred#current_fiber#[]
  • Add: Thread#truly_thread_local_get(key) and Thread#truly_thread_local_set(key, val)

(of course, truly_... is temporal name)

I prefer this solution. I want a way to set true thread locals.

Another idea:

Add an option to derive Fiber local storage at a Fiber creation.

For example:

Thread[:foo] = :bar
Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
  Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

I think the "true thread local" solution is better than this because I
can use it with existing fiber based code. If a third party library
uses Fibers, and I want thread locals, it would not be possible with
this solution.

I'm afraid that people overuse it rather than Fiber local storage. The
reason why Thread local is Fiber local is that most of thread locals
should be fiber local.

I think we need to discuss carefully.

Akira-san:
Could you give us your comments?

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#11 Updated by Anonymous almost 2 years ago

  • File noname added

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:34:47AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

(2012/10/02 9:42), Aaron Patterson wrote:

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:32:51AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

(2012/10/02 8:22), SASADA Koichi wrote:

One idea is:

  • Define: Thread#[] -> Thred#current_fiber#[]
  • Add: Thread#truly_thread_local_get(key) and Thread#truly_thread_local_set(key, val)

(of course, truly_... is temporal name)

I prefer this solution. I want a way to set true thread locals.

Another idea:

Add an option to derive Fiber local storage at a Fiber creation.

For example:

Thread[:foo] = :bar
Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
  Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

I think the "true thread local" solution is better than this because I
can use it with existing fiber based code. If a third party library
uses Fibers, and I want thread locals, it would not be possible with
this solution.

I'm afraid that people overuse it rather than Fiber local storage. The
reason why Thread local is Fiber local is that most of thread locals
should be fiber local.

I think we need to discuss carefully.

The problem I'm facing is with database connections. Database
connections can't be shared among threads (since no parallel access is
allowed). I don't want to pass the connection to every function call,
so a thread local makes sense for connection storage.

AFAIK, Fibers cannot run in parallel, so it's OK for two Fibers to share
a database connection.

Does this make sense? Maybe my assumption is wrong about Fibers.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#12 Updated by Motohiro KOSAKI almost 2 years ago

For example:

Thread[:foo] = :bar
Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
  Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

I think the "true thread local" solution is better than this because I
can use it with existing fiber based code. If a third party library
uses Fibers, and I want thread locals, it would not be possible with
this solution.

I'm afraid compatibility breakage. mame-san said:

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/1717 comment#2

I can't really remember the rationale, but I think that most of
legacy libraries that uses thread-local storage will expect the
storage to be also fiber-local.

I'm not surprised old libraries have different assumption with you.
share_fiber_local_storage: approach don't break anything.

But real question is, Are such old libraries still living in the wild? Who
uses? Who know?

#13 Updated by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago

  • File deleted (noname)

#14 Updated by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago

  • File deleted (noname)

#15 Updated by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago

Here is a patch to implement thread locals. It just sets a hash on the thread that you can access via Thread#get_local and Thread#set_local. We should probably add a Thread#local? to test for keys.

#16 Updated by Anonymous almost 2 years ago

  • File noname added

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:46:02AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

For example:

Thread[:foo] = :bar
Fiber.new(derive_fiber_local_storage: true) do
  Thread[:foo] #=> :bar
end

And use Fiber in enumerator with this option true.

I think the "true thread local" solution is better than this because I
can use it with existing fiber based code. If a third party library
uses Fibers, and I want thread locals, it would not be possible with
this solution.

I'm afraid compatibility breakage. mame-san said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think we should leave Thread#[] behavior as-is.
We can add new methods for accessing thread locals. This will maintain
backwards compatibility and give us the new functionality.

I attached a patch to this issue to show what I mean. :-)

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#17 Updated by Motohiro KOSAKI almost 2 years ago

I'm afraid compatibility breakage. mame-san said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think we should leave Thread#[] behavior as-is.
We can add new methods for accessing thread locals. This will maintain
backwards compatibility and give us the new functionality.

Ah, ok. It doesn't have compatibility issue. The last problem is Thread#[] and
Thread#set_local are very likely confusing. I'd like to wait and see
other developer's
opinion. :)

I attached a patch to this issue to show what I mean. :-)

#18 Updated by Akira Tanaka almost 2 years ago

2012/10/2 SASADA Koichi ko1@atdot.net:

Akira-san:
Could you give us your comments?

I think it is possible to add new methods for thread local storage.
--
Tanaka Akira

#19 Updated by Aaron Patterson almost 2 years ago

Akira-san, do you have suggestions for method names?

#20 Updated by Akira Tanaka almost 2 years ago

2012/10/12 tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) aaron@tenderlovemaking.com:

Akira-san, do you have suggestions for method names?

I have no concrete idea.

I guess thread-local variable is used less often than fiber-local variable.
So thread-local methods should be longer than fiber-local methods.
This will be achieved naturally because the fiber-local methods,
Thread#[] and Thread#[]=, are very short.
--
Tanaka Akira

#21 Updated by Aaron Patterson over 1 year ago

I spoke with ko1-san and Usa-san last night, and we thought that thread_variable_(get|set) would be good (similar to instance_variable_(get|set)). I've attached an updated patch to make that change. The documentation includes examples of how the thread local storage and fiber local storage are different.

I added two more methods:

  • Thread#thread_variables # => returns a list of the defined variable keys
  • Thread#thread_variable? # => returns true if a key is set, otherwise false

Thread#local_variable_(get|set) methods respect the same security and frozen behavior as Thread#[] and Thread#[]=.

I think matz said it's OK to add this. @akr, and @ko1 how is this patch? If it's OK, I would like to apply to trunk.

Thanks! :-)

#22 Updated by Koichi Sasada over 1 year ago

I don't have any objection.

I recommend that Thread#[] should be reference to
Thread#thread_variable_get, and so on.


Should we add the following new methods to clarify thread local and
fiber local?

Thread#fiber_variable_get <= alias of Thread#[]
Thread#fiber_variable_set <= alias of Thread#[]=
Thread#fiber_variable?
Thread#fiber_variables

Thanks,
Koichi

(2012/10/26 7:20), tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson).

File thread_variables.patch added

I spoke with ko1-san and Usa-san last night, and we thought that thread_variable_(get|set) would be good (similar to instance_variable_(get|set)). I've attached an updated patch to make that change. The documentation includes examples of how the thread local storage and fiber local storage are different.

I added two more methods:

  • Thread#thread_variables # => returns a list of the defined variable keys
  • Thread#thread_variable? # => returns true if a key is set, otherwise false

Thread#local_variable_(get|set) methods respect the same security and frozen behavior as Thread#[] and Thread#[]=.

I think matz said it's OK to add this. @akr, and @ko1 how is this patch? If it's OK, I would like to apply to trunk.

Thanks! :-)

Bug #7097: Thread locals don't work inside Enumerator
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7097#change-31586

Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
Category:
Target version:
ruby -v: ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-09-25 trunk 37032) [x86_64-darwin12.2.0]

I set a thread local outside an Enumerator. The Enumerator runs inside the same thread where I set the local. I would expect the thread local to be available since I am in the same thread, but it is not.

Here is a test that shows the problem:

require 'minitest/autorun'

class ThreadLocalBreaks < MiniTest::Unit::TestCase
def test_thread_local_in_enumerator
Thread.current[:foo] = "bar"

thread, value = Enumerator.new { |y|
  y << [Thread.current, Thread.current[:foo]]
}.next

assert_equal Thread.current, thread       # passes
assert_equal Thread.current[:foo], value  # fails

end
end

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#23 Updated by Anonymous over 1 year ago

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 02:40:53PM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

I don't have any objection.

I recommend that Thread#[] should be reference to
Thread#thread_variable_get, and so on.

The documentation I added for Thread#thread_variable_get does reference
Thread#[], and each method makes it clear that it's for thread locals
(not fiber locals).


Should we add the following new methods to clarify thread local and
fiber local?

Thread#fiber_variable_get <= alias of Thread#[]
Thread#fiber_variable_set <= alias of Thread#[]=
Thread#fiber_variable?
Thread#fiber_variables

I think these aliases would make it clear that we're dealing with Fiber
locals. I don't have a strong opinion though.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#24 Updated by Koichi Sasada over 1 year ago

(2012/10/26 15:41), Aaron Patterson wrote:

I recommend that Thread#[] should be reference to

Thread#thread_variable_get, and so on.
The documentation I added for Thread#thread_variable_get does reference
Thread#[], and each method makes it clear that it's for thread locals
(not fiber locals).

I wrote wrong sentence. I wanted to write:

The rdoc of Thread# should refer
Thread#thread_variable_get(set).

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#25 Updated by Benoit Daloze over 1 year ago

tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:

I spoke with ko1-san and Usa-san last night, and we thought that thread_variable_(get|set) would be good (similar to instance_variable_(get|set)). I've attached an updated patch to make that change. The documentation includes examples of how the thread local storage and fiber local storage are different.

I added two more methods:

  • Thread#thread_variables # => returns a list of the defined variable keys
  • Thread#thread_variable? # => returns true if a key is set, otherwise false

Thread#local_variable_(get|set) methods respect the same security and frozen behavior as Thread#[] and Thread#[]=.

Sounds great, but I feel the "thread_" prefix is redundant given it is called on a Thread object.
I'm thinking to two alternatives:

  • Remove the "thread_" prefix (as usually the thread instance is Thread.current which is very explicit, or the variable name should be clear enough).

    Thread.current.variable_get(:var)
    thread.variable_get(:var)
    worker.variable_get(:var)

    versus

    Thread.current.thread_variable_get(:var)
    thread.thread_variable_get(:var)
    worker.thread_variable_get(:var)

Also, I think get/set do not feel very ruby-like, so ...

  • Use a API resembling fiber locals:

Thread#locals # => returns an object responding to #[] and #[]= (and maybe #variables and #include?)

Thread.current.locals[:var] = some_value
Thread.current.locals[:var]

I guess exposing the whole Hash is exposing internal structures and so is unreasonable. But doing so would be intuitive and avoid having 4 new methods for 4 well-known ([],[]=,keys,include?).

#26 Updated by Aaron Patterson over 1 year ago

Updated patch with documentation.

#27 Updated by Anonymous over 1 year ago

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:38:19PM +0900, Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).

tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:

I spoke with ko1-san and Usa-san last night, and we thought that thread_variable_(get|set) would be good (similar to instance_variable_(get|set)). I've attached an updated patch to make that change. The documentation includes examples of how the thread local storage and fiber local storage are different.

I added two more methods:

  • Thread#thread_variables # => returns a list of the defined variable keys
  • Thread#thread_variable? # => returns true if a key is set, otherwise false

Thread#local_variable_(get|set) methods respect the same security and frozen behavior as Thread#[] and Thread#[]=.

Sounds great, but I feel the "thread_" prefix is redundant given it is called on a Thread object.
I'm thinking to two alternatives:

  • Remove the "thread_" prefix (as usually the thread instance is Thread.current which is very explicit, or the variable name should be clear enough).

    Thread.current.variable_get(:var)
    thread.variable_get(:var)
    worker.variable_get(:var)

    versus

    Thread.current.thread_variable_get(:var)
    thread.thread_variable_get(:var)
    worker.thread_variable_get(:var)

Also, I think get/set do not feel very ruby-like, so ...

If it becomes cumbersome, we can add aliases later. get/set aren't very
ruby-like, but we have other examples (instance_variable_(get|set)).

  • Use a API resembling fiber locals:

Thread#locals # => returns an object responding to #[] and #[]= (and maybe #variables and #include?)

Thread.current.locals[:var] = some_value
Thread.current.locals[:var]

I guess exposing the whole Hash is exposing internal structures and so is unreasonable. But doing so would be intuitive and avoid having 4 new methods for 4 well-known ([],[]=,keys,include?).

I'd rather not expose another object. We can't just expose the hash
object because it would have inconsistent behavior with fiber locals:

 irb(main):001:0> t = Thread.new { }.join
 => #<Thread:0x007fe5f11278c8 dead>
 irb(main):002:0> t[:foo] = "bar"
 => "bar"
 irb(main):003:0> t["foo"]
 => "bar"
 irb(main):004:0>

Also, we'd have to figure out what calling freeze on that hash means.
Because of these things, we would have to expose a new object that isn't
a Hash. Exposing a new object means propagating things like
Thread#freeze down to the new object.

If we implement these 4 new method in my patch, our API footprint is
only increased by 4 new methods (vs 5 methods + a new object type). If
we find later on that exposing an object is a good thing, we can easily
implement these 4 methods in terms of the new object and deprecate the
4 methods. Going in the other direction, deprecating an object, is not
so easy.

I don't particularly care what the method names are (since we can just
alias them later), but I'm firmly against exposing a new object.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#28 Updated by Anonymous over 1 year ago

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:41:09PM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

(2012/10/26 15:41), Aaron Patterson wrote:

I recommend that Thread#[] should be reference to

Thread#thread_variable_get, and so on.
The documentation I added for Thread#thread_variable_get does reference
Thread#[], and each method makes it clear that it's for thread locals
(not fiber locals).

I wrote wrong sentence. I wanted to write:

The rdoc of Thread# should refer
Thread#thread_variable_get(set).

Sounds good! I'll update the patch.

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#29 Updated by Benoit Daloze over 1 year ago

Aaron wrote:

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:38:19PM +0900, Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

  • Remove the "thread_" prefix (as usually the thread instance is Thread.current which is very explicit, or the variable name should be clear enough).

If it becomes cumbersome, we can add aliases later. get/set aren't very
ruby-like, but we have other examples (instance_variable_(get|set)).

Yeah, I think these examples are not particularly the best, but I see no other good name (well, #[] and #[]= but they are already taken). I'd rather remove the 'thread_' prefix from now, but it makes sense to follow instance_variable_{get,set}.

I'd rather not expose another object. We can't just expose the hash
object because it would have inconsistent behavior with fiber locals:

 irb(main):001:0> t = Thread.new { }.join
 => #<Thread:0x007fe5f11278c8 dead>
 irb(main):002:0> t[:foo] = "bar"
 => "bar"
 irb(main):003:0> t["foo"]
 => "bar"
 irb(main):004:0>

Also, we'd have to figure out what calling freeze on that hash means.
Because of these things, we would have to expose a new object that isn't
a Hash. Exposing a new object means propagating things like
Thread#freeze down to the new object.

I understand your concern, indeed it's giving too much freedom to the user (and too less to implementers).

If we implement these 4 new method in my patch, our API footprint is
only increased by 4 new methods (vs 5 methods + a new object type). If
we find later on that exposing an object is a good thing, we can easily
implement these 4 methods in terms of the new object and deprecate the
4 methods. Going in the other direction, deprecating an object, is not
so easy.

I don't particularly care what the method names are (since we can just
alias them later), but I'm firmly against exposing a new object.

I see, this was a bold suggestion (which I made because I would greatly prefer that API), but it has too much drawbacks and complexity.
Thank you for answering it in details.

#30 Updated by Koichi Sasada over 1 year ago

(2012/10/27 5:09), Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Yeah, I think these examples are not particularly the best, but I see no other good name (well, #[] and #[]= but they are already taken). I'd rather remove the 'thread_' prefix from now, but it makes sense to follow instance_variable_{get,set}.

I strongly disagree removing "thread" prefix because this method should
not be easy to use (so the name should be long name). Most of case,
`Thread#[]' is true selection.

And I think the name "local" is too ambiguous because Ruby has "local
variables" (a variable x which is defined by `x = 1', of course you know
:)).

For example, Ruby already has Kernel.local_variables', which returns
names of local variables in current frame.
Thread.local_variables' (or
similar naming rule) is confusion (someone can misunderstand that this
method returns `local_variables' in thread's current context).

--
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

#31 Updated by Benoit Daloze over 1 year ago

On 26 October 2012 22:26, SASADA Koichi ko1@atdot.net wrote:

(2012/10/27 5:09), Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Yeah, I think these examples are not particularly the best, but I see no other good name (well, #[] and #[]= but they are already taken). I'd rather remove the 'thread_' prefix from now, but it makes sense to follow instance_variable_{get,set}.

I strongly disagree removing "thread" prefix because this method should
not be easy to use (so the name should be long name). Most of case,
`Thread#[]' is true selection.

In that light, I agree thread_variable* is fine.

And I think the name "local" is too ambiguous because Ruby has "local
variables" (a variable x which is defined by `x = 1', of course you know
:)).

For example, Ruby already has Kernel.local_variables', which returns
names of local variables in current frame.
Thread.local_variables' (or
similar naming rule) is confusion (someone can misunderstand that this
method returns `local_variables' in thread's current context).

I thought to that too. This might be less of a problem if variables
referencing threads have a clear name, but it might be confusing if not.

Sorry for the diversion.

#32 Updated by Anonymous over 1 year ago

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:09:36AM +0900, Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Issue #7097 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).

[snip]

If we implement these 4 new method in my patch, our API footprint is
only increased by 4 new methods (vs 5 methods + a new object type). If
we find later on that exposing an object is a good thing, we can easily
implement these 4 methods in terms of the new object and deprecate the
4 methods. Going in the other direction, deprecating an object, is not
so easy.

I don't particularly care what the method names are (since we can just
alias them later), but I'm firmly against exposing a new object.

I see, this was a bold suggestion (which I made because I would greatly prefer that API), but it has too much drawbacks and complexity.
Thank you for answering it in details.

No problem! Thank you for reviewing my patch. I appreciate the
feedback. :-)

--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

#33 Updated by Aaron Patterson over 1 year ago

  • File deleted (noname)

#34 Updated by Koichi Sasada over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Closed
  • Target version set to 2.0.0

This "feature" was introduced.

Also available in: Atom PDF