On 04:18 pm, daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com wrote: >On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Antoine Pitrou ><solipsis at pitrou.net>wrote: >>Er, I prefer to keep things simple. If you have lots of I/O you should >>probably >>use an event loop rather than separate threads. > >On Windows, sometimes using a single-threaded event loop is sometimes >impossible. WaitForMultipleObjects(), which is the Windows equivalent >to >select() or poll(), can handle a maximum of only 64 objects. This is only partially accurate. For one thing, WaitForMultipleObjects calls are nestable. For another thing, Windows also has I/O completion ports which are not limited to 64 event sources. The situation is actually better than on a lot of POSIXes. >Do we really need priority requests at all? They seem counter to your >desire for simplicity and allowing the operating system's scheduler to >do >its work. Despite what I said above, however, I would also take a default position against adding any kind of more advanced scheduling system here. It would, perhaps, make sense to expose the APIs for controlling the platform scheduler, though. Jean-Paul
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4