August 2007


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Maciej M. Latek" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
MASON Multiagent Simulation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:05:38 -0400
text/plain (72 lines)

1) When run with the GUI, the error occurs (it seems to run with GUI
less simulation though):

Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0" java.lang.Error: Unresolved
compilation problem:
	The method isThrowingScheduleExceptions() is undefined for the type Schedule

	at sim.display.GUIState.scheduleImmediate(
	at sim.display.GUIState.scheduleImmediateRepeat(
	at my GUIState derivative class

2) At the same time, constructor Schedule(int) is undefined, which
causes some of the demos not to run (Mousetraps for example).





On 8/13/07, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here's a further revised Schedule for anyone interested.  Totally
> experimental -- indeed, basically untested.  It's been modified in
> the following way.
>         - Any thread can now schedule things on the schedule at any time,
> even while schedule.step() is running.
>         - Any thread can now call reset() or simstate.kill(), but be advised
> that other threads could theoretically add new things on the schedule
> even after it's been reset, thus nullifying the point of reset() or
> kill().
>         - Any thread can call time() (or a new identical method, getTime())
> or getSteps()
>         - schedule.step() explicitly looks for reentrancy and denies it
>         - I've deleted the numOrders constructor.  It's time.
>         - I've deleted the throwsExceptions option.  A bit faster and
> cleaner.  It's time.
> I do this by employing two locks: (1) the Schedule itself, whose
> synchronization controls access to step() to prevent some race
> conditions, and (2) an internal lock which controls access to the
> time, steps, shuffling parameter, and heap.  Using this second lock
> allows some finer control over critical regions and thus makes
> possible the "any thread" stuff in the bullets above.
> It doesn't look much slower, so I may keep it.  But I won't add it to
> CVS without some major testing. Anyone up for it?
> To be threadsafe, AsynchronousSteppables and ParallelSequence still
> shouldn't call reset() or simstate.kill(), but rather should schedule
> a Steppable which calls simstate.kill().
> Sean