What are the timers for exactly? I would go to a more event based model. I would bypass .net and other OS specific stuff. Zeromq instead of TCPIP has a lot of advantages: 1) works between processes and between threads; 2) supports pub-sub (great for events!) as well as simple message passing; 3) supports more complex fan-in, fan-out message patterns; 4) very fast, no middleman choke point
Hope that helps or gives you some alternatives. - s On 03/08/2015 06:54 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI wrote: > Sometimes we're dealing with a lot of high fallutin' AI-esque > algorithms and lose sight of the basics. > > In this case no special handling, just socket messaging, events and > timers. > > > ~PM > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 20:55:17 -0400 > Subject: Re: [agi] Psyche semaphore... > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > If a thread, for example, created other threads as it tried to solve > some problem, then the little o problem could become a big o problem. > But it did not sound like that was the situation that was being described. > > Jim Bromer > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Microsoft .net has events that can be posted which will be read by > another part of the code (including but not necessarily other > threads). I cannot remember just how it is executed but I remember > from long ago that the modern processors all have many exception > processes which means that code can be interrupted in order to do > something with 'external' (virtual or actual -peripheral or > software) data. So a semaphore reading loop should not be > absolutely necessary. However, most programs use some kind of loop > and even if data is sent through an event in .net, I just used the > event type data (the type of event that I defined) to fill in a > variable in the other thread which was then read in a loop that > examined the variable along with other variables. The problem is > that even if you found an event-like method (or a software > exception-like thing) the demand that the timer loop exit > gracefully almost means that it will definitely need to stay > within its main program loop. If you found an event-like action > that you could use you might set the timer to 0 or something like > that and let it exit according to the timer=0 plan or something. > That would allow the program to react without checking some kind > of event variable. However, you probably have to ask the java > people about that. > > I don't like simple software switches that have to be read over > and over again until they are set when they are only set once. > However, modern processors don't recommend that the programmer > uses dynamic code. It would be fairly easy to use dynamic code > (with C++) to change the execution code if that was something that > really was important. So the program follows one code path until > the condition occurs in which case the execution code is changed a > little. Stick in a new branch or something like that. With C++ and > all the layers that we have between us and the machine code you > would have to use different pieces of code like different function > calls. But again, unless that was part of the fundamental nature > of how your program is going to work, all the little function > calls that you need only to be able to deal with the condition > then adds extra jumps between the function particles. So it is > really the same thing - there is going to be some extra little > stuff in the code just to deal with the occasional conditional - > unless you want to use a bunch of really small functions that are > strung together anyway. You could do that in java but is it really > going to make your program more efficient. > > Anyway, does it make sense for you to worry about details like > little o stuff? > > Jim Bromer > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Piaget Modeler via AGI > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I'm working on a Psyche application this week which interacts > with a device > on behalf of an AI "mind". Here's a proposed call tree > diagram. What do you think? > > Terminated is a boolean semaphore object that tells the timers > that the program is > done, and that the timers should terminate gracefully. An > event will set the > Terminated semaphore object to True. > > The only problem is that the semaphore will be continually > read by all the timers > when determining whether to exit their timer loop. Is there a > better way? > > Your thoughts? > > ~PM > *AGI* | Archives > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> > | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your > Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> > > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [Powered > by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
