On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Tony Ringsmuth <[email protected]> wrote:
> As 4D is implementing it; your are correct. > But the goal should be to Provide a path for > - The best possible performance gain > - With the least required amount of re-development > I think they may be succeeding on #1, but totally failing on #2. I think > it can be much better. > Tony, Yes, I understand you want to simplify migration of existing code into preemptive processes. From my point of view, developer will have to do quite a lot of changes, so helping with some particular issues may not help much - may be even counterproductive. Just an example - interprocess variables: they are used across processes, that's why they are interprocess. They cannot be used for the same purpose in preemptive process. Developer should check each code that use them because that code may need to be rewritten - so he can as well change them to process variables during that process. Regarding your question - I plan to use preemptive processes, but am not sure if I will convert any existing code to preemptive process, so your question #2 may not apply. -- Peter Bozek ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
