On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:28:01PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> > Threading
> > -
> >
> > An I/O operation passes a buffer, length, file and action and receives a
> > token back.
>
> You seem to be using the word "threading" in a completely
> different way than usu
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > An I/O operation passes a buffer, length, file and action and receives a
> > token back.
>
> You seem to be using the word "threading" in a completely
> different way than usual here, which may be causing some
> confusion.
Not really, though I may have
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Threading
> -
>
> An I/O operation passes a buffer, length, file and action and receives a
> token back.
You seem to be using the word "threading" in a completely
different way than usual here, which may be causing some
confusion.
--
Greg
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think this discussion would be facilitated by teasing the first
> bullet-point from the latter two: the first deals with async IO, while
> the latter two deal with cooperative multitasking.
>
> It's easy to write a single package that does both, but it's much harder
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Knowing the history of something like this is very helpful, but I'm not
> sure what you mean by this first paragraph. I think I'm most unclear
> about the meaning of "The 'threading' approach to asynchronous I/O"?
> Its opposite ("separating asynchronous I/O from threa
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 07:46:59PM +, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I think this discussion would be facilitated by teasing the first
> > bullet-point from the latter two: the first deals with async IO, while
> > the latter two deal with cooperative multitasking.
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think this discussion would be facilitated by teasing the first
> bullet-point from the latter two: the first deals with async IO, while
> the latter two deal with cooperative multitasking.
>
> It's easy to write a single package that does both, but it's much harder
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:28:17PM +0100, Joachim K?nig-Baltes wrote:
> No, I'd like to have:
>
> - An interface for a task to specifiy the events it's interested in, and
> waiting for at least one of the events (with a timeout).
> - an interface for creating a task (similar to creating a threa
