On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:18:09 +0100, Sylvain Hellegouarch <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Matt Hammond
<[email protected]>wrote:
The attraction to me if the simplicity of use and the lower overheads
compared to using a threaded component to send timing signalling.
With the understanding of blocking the whole Python process (hence the
scheduler) by not using a thread for the timer.
It doesn't block the scheduler. It uses the python Timer class, which
uses
a thread. When the timer times-out, the component is re-awoken, if
paused.
Damn, that'll teach in reading the code more properly. I assumed it was a
time.sleep(...). Sorry for that.
No problem.
You are right though that a mixin is not the right solution. My view is
that the downside of what I've done compared to your approach is that it
is effectively a modification to Axon, rather than building the
functionality on top of the existing features.
Matt
--
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"kamaelia" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kamaelia?hl=en.
