> The main downside I see right now to using Active4D is that it does not allow you to take > advantage of pre-emptive threads in v16. This will hopefully change at some point. With > that said A4D is a great product and has been a go-to for me in web work many times.
I guess I've got a new hobby: Respond to this point every time I see it. Here goes. Question: "We can't use pre-emptive threads." Answer: "So what." Seriously, so what. Does it matter in your case? Does *anyone* have a case where it matters. 4D Server itself sure does. If you're writing a Web server by scratch, then putting the logging code onto its own thread makes sense. Other than that? I really don't know. I'm not saying that I know that it doesn't matter, I'm saying that I don't know if it matters or not in a particular case. Obviously, there will be cases where it is a big deal, and a lot where it's not a big deal. Until we've got a better sense for what those cases are, and the scale of the benefit, it does not make sense to me to automatically reject solutions that do not entirely (or at all) take advantage of pre-emptive threads. And, as it's one of my other interests, if you need more cores, add more machines. I haven't seen the term RAIC in a long time, but it stood for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers. Get a bunch of boxes, divide up the work, and grind. Millions of hits on your Web server every day? Not a problem...and I can remember this going back to around 1994-1995. ********************************************************************** 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] **********************************************************************
