On 12/27/06, MenTaLguY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 19:43 -0300, Luis Lavena wrote: > > I guess rubygems folks added thread part of rubygems now... something > > that isn't good at all (why I require thread if my application I don't > > use it?, just to say something). > > I don't know... it seems reasonable if they need to do something in a > threadsafe manner. Even e.g. Singleton needs synchronization, though it > doesn't currently use Mutex to do it (IMO it _should_, fastthread > weirdness aside). > > I'm not really sure what the best resolution here is. fastthread is > ultimately intended to become a patch to Ruby core, of course. But that > can't happen immediately, especially as even with the patch in hand I > would still need to sell the ruby-core folks on it... >
I asked Eric Hodel about it, and he said it looked like the 'thread' requirement in rubygems was added accidentally. That was after only a few moments of contemplation, so it may turn out differently in the long run. _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
