Comments on: XNA Resource Pool http://codecube.net/2010/01/xna-resource-pool/ Joel Martinez' weblog Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:05:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Joel Martinez http://codecube.net/2010/01/xna-resource-pool/comment-page-1/#comment-894 Joel Martinez Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:30:36 +0000 http://codecube.net/?p=231#comment-894 I actually originally had a Func, but it's actually more useful to just have a custom initialization function. Because in the case where you are reusing a previously existing object, you will likely just want to reset certain values instead of creating a new instance as you would with the Func :-) I actually originally had a Func, but it’s actually more useful to just have a custom initialization function. Because in the case where you are reusing a previously existing object, you will likely just want to reset certain values instead of creating a new instance as you would with the Func :-)

]]> By: George Tsiokos http://codecube.net/2010/01/xna-resource-pool/comment-page-1/#comment-893 George Tsiokos Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:33:05 +0000 http://codecube.net/?p=231#comment-893 If you back it with .NET 4's (or .NET 3.5's via RX) BlockingCollection, then you can easily make it thread-safe and have the ability to block instead of creating a new instance. Of course, you may continue the same behavior as well with SyncronizedQueue. In addition, you may want to have a Func in the constructor to use as the factory so you can get rid of the new() generic constraint. -- Sent from my iPhone If you back it with .NET 4′s (or .NET 3.5′s via RX) BlockingCollection, then you can easily make it thread-safe and have the ability to block instead of creating a new instance. Of course, you may continue the same behavior as well with SyncronizedQueue. In addition, you may want to have a Func in the constructor to use as the factory so you can get rid of the new() generic constraint.

–
Sent from my iPhone

]]>