I think that this is the morph scheduler model that is wrong. but unfortunately I'm not good enough in concurrent programming to fix. I remember that once nathanael told me that it was bogus by construction and that he understood how to do a good one. Too bad google took him :)
On Dec 24, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Damien Pollet wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 14:27, Stéphane Ducasse > <[email protected]> wrote: >> yes but so far none of the moprh class specialised this method. > > it's not used => remove it > >> On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> It depends whether it makes sense or not to have a different >>> threshold >>> for objects. > > I'm not convinced by that threshold thing. If you need to update > something, either you have realtime constraints, or you just want to > limit CPU usage, in which case it's the scheduler's responsibility to > respect whatever low priority you give to the update task… no? > > -- > Damien Pollet > type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
