Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
Yes there is a reason not to parallelize. It makes profiling to determine where
time is spent far harder. It makes debugging far harder as it introduces the
possibility of interactions across threads. Coroutines has no concurrency, so
AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
By "coroutines library", you're talking about the one on your gist that
you wrote?
https://gist.github.com/mbeckerle/312474bac9bee9102438c160890b6539
It would be nice if batching we're an option,
overhead if we want.
From: Steve Lawrence
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:12 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
As I recall, the libraries that use things like annotations end up
changing the return types of all the callers, w
so you
>> don't have to dig for it.
>>
>> From: Beckerle, Mike
>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:53 AM
>> To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
>>
>> That's really
of in a separate sandbox, so
if you want to grab that I'll get it over to you so you don't have to dig for
it.
From: Beckerle, Mike
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:53 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
That's really
, so
if you want to grab that I'll get it over to you so you don't have to dig for
it.
From: Beckerle, Mike
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:53 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
That's really informative
: Beckerle, Mike
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:53 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
That's really informative and confirms intuition that using threads really
hurts performance when all you need is a stack switch.
In this case reducing
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
I decided to look at performance of three potential options to see if
that would rule anything out. I looked at 1) coroutines 2) continuations
3) threads with BlockingQueue. For each of these, I modified the gist to
remove printlns and use
____
> From: Steve Lawrence
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 11:21 AM
> To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
>
> Thanks Mike! Continuations seems like a better alternative, at least
> from a support point of view. Though, it's
be wrong.
From: Steve Lawrence
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 11:21 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coroutines - was Re: Daffodil SAX API Proposal
Thanks Mike! Continuations seems like a better alternative, at least
from a support point of view. Though
Thanks Mike! Continuations seems like a better alternative, at least
from a support point of view. Though, it's a little concerning that no
one is really stepping up to port it to 2.13, but I don't think we're in
any rush to get to 2.13. And I personally find the reset/shift concept a
bit harder
scala continuations is supported on 2.11 and 2.12, but work in progress for
2.13. The main web page for it says it is looking for a lead developer and
without that typesafe/lightbeam is doing bare minimum maintenance.
A producer/consumer idiom like what we need is easily expressed using this
12 matches
Mail list logo
