Hi Larry:
--- On Wed, 10/15/08, Larry Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow you here: the "mechanism that
> waits for multiple inputs and selects one of them" certainly does not
> look like a channel; it looks like a case statement.
If I understand you correctly, I don't see a big difference (outside of less
machinery) between
val = stackless.receive_first([chan1, chan2, ....])
and some construct, let us call it 'synchronizer' (loosely based on the van
Aalst workflow pattern - synchronizer). Usually synchronizers are synonymous
with barrier synchronization.
val = synchronizer.wait(count) for N consumers, synchronizer.signal(some value)
for the producers. In your case, you can wait for one.
chances are channels would be implemented under the hood....
If there is no consumer, a producer blocks. Once a synchronizer is triggered,
future producers will raise an exception on a signal until the synchronizer is
re-initialized.
Again, I just feel that channels are powerful. However my limited experience
has been that scenarios where a single consumer waits on multiple channels can
be replaced with a simpler construct that is far more controllable (and use few
channels).
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
