develooper Front page | perl.perl6.porters | Postings from November 1999

Re: threads in general

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
John van V.
Date:
November 16, 1999 05:22
Subject:
Re: threads in general
Message ID:
19991116132229.12692.rocketmail@web803.mail.yahoo.com

:> > The only chance we have of getting a robust and scalable threaded perl
:> > is if they are put in from the ground floor up, i.e. in Topaz, which if
:> > you are correct isn't going to happen anyway.
:> 
:> I think Chip, quite sanely, favors the thread-per-interpreter model.
:> And I think that's what perl5 will end up with.

:Yes, now you come to mention it I recollect him saying something to that
:effect on p6p.  I agree - it seems a far better model, and infinitely
:easier to implement.  After all, the less shared state there is, the
:fewer the locking problems there will be :-)

After a decade of running servers I personally dont see any problems w/ forking
as opposed to threading and many advantages, forks can break w/o bringing
humanity to a halt.

But... I have an application where I want to share hoh/hoa/aoh/aoa structures
between server connections (shamelessly cut+pasted from code Tom C gave me). 
The only way to use IPC is to stringify the structure and re-evaluate it in the
receiving process.

Also... Though I personally dont care, doesn't NT require a threading model and
fork so poorly that excluding multi-threading is breaking some of the
previously laid out rules?


=====
John van Vlaanderen

      #########################################
      #    CXN, Inc. Contact:                 #
      #    john@thinman.com, www.thinman.com  #
      #    1 917 309 7379 (cell, voice mail)  #                   
      #########################################
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About