On 28/05/10 02:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:05:14 +1000 > Nick Coghlan<ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Executors and thread pools are not the same thing. >> >> I might create a thread pool for *anything*. An executor will always >> have a specific execution model associated with it (whether it be called >> futures, as in this case, or runnables or something else). > > I'm sorry, but what is the specific execution model you are talking > about, and how is it different from what you usually do with a thread > pool? Why would you do something other with a thread pool than running > tasks and (optionally) collecting their results? Both the execution and communications models may be different. The components may be long-lived state machines, they may be active objects, they may communicate by message passing or by manipulating shared state, who knows. Executors are designed around a model of "go do this and let me know when you're done". A general purpose pool needs to support other execution models, and hence will look different (and is harder to design and write, since it needs to be more flexible). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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