Can this discussion thread be moved to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, please? It's much more appropriate there.
Thanks :) R. On Sunday, August 11, 2002, at 05:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:15:20AM +0200, Arthur Bergman wrote: >> >> On fredag, augusti 9, 2002, at 03:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Then go take that time and improve ithreads performance ! :) >>> That's a prerequisite for transaction support somehow ... >>> >>> torvald >>> >> >> How so? And whats wrong with the performance? > > you need some sort of concurrency. processes or different machines > instead > of threads works, but would be too slow. cooperative multi-tasking > would > work as well, but then you'd need to split up all methods where > accessors are called that belong to resources which could be locked. > acquiring all the locks at the beginning of the method sucks. so, > threads should be best way (-> "... somehow"). > > according to how i interpreted the ithreads ml posts several users are > not > quite happy about performance, especially memory usage. it's good work > and they like it but had thought that it would be better. > > that doesn't really affect POE. > > more accurate and smiley removed, > > torvald
