> Le 25 oct. 2017 à 18:23, Douglas von Roeder via 4D_Tech 
> <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> a écrit :
> Arnaud:
> [...] That is a function of "cooperative multitasking" and, now that we can 
> run code
> pre-emotively, developers will have to have a more clear understanding of
> (and better control of) what runs, when.
> I'm making a narrow distinction there but I think it's a valid one.

Interesting… Most of the time I use global semaphore to "protect" some (big?) 
data modification or do things that cannot be ensured at the classical record 
lock level. Never tried to use a global semaphore to share machines ressources 
as you describe. 

But back to that delay parameter:
With a global semaphore, the doc does not say if during delay:
• a/ forth and go between client and server, something like
  C=did I get it?...S=no
  C=did I get it?...S=no
  C=did I get it?...S=yes
  and, if so, what is the frequency of the question
• b/ client sends once the question, server answers once "yes" (in delay) or 
"no" (delay expired)
To make some unsound parallel, with a EoS method, I suppose the situation is 
b/, send the method to execute once, reply once. No forth and go. If the delay 
parameter acts the same in Semaphore function, the difference between the 
"while form" and the "delay form" becomes important. 

Arnaud de Montard 

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:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com

Reply via email to