[DGD] Rewriting the main loop

[Raymond Jennings]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:14 AM Felix A. Croes <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:

> Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:37 PM Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 8:28 PM Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As for the reason:
> > > >
> > > > It is my personal opinion that DGD should be as responsive as
> possible,
>
> I suppose that this is what you imagine you are having a difference
> of opinion about?  Actually, this is a refusal to see that your basic
> assumptions are wrong, and that your proffered solution would be a
> disaster even if they weren't.
>
> >[...]
> > > I'm not sure I understand the distinction here. Won't it often, perhaps
> > > generally, be the case that the callouts are part of the human
> interaction?
> >
> > It depends on what the interaction is.
>
> Don't hold forth as if you are an expert on things DGD.  Stephen
> understands this better than you do, and he is showing you one of
> the errors in your thinking.
>
> Most perplexingly, this has mostly been a replay of an earlier discussion
> that we've had off-list 6 years ago.  In the intervening years you have
> learned nothing;


I must admit that my memory isn't that great.


> when the same flaws are pointed out to you, you dismiss
> that as a difference of opinion.  When I went into further detail, you
> even had the gall to remark, "This part is new", before discarding that,
> too, with all the rest.
>

I apologize if I was appearing to dismiss the idea.  When you mentioned
callout starvation here:

> All that has to happen to cause the callout table to fill up is for
> callouts to be added, from I/O-started tasks, faster than they are
> being executed.

It sounded like a problem that already existed even in vanilla DGD.  So my
"discarding" if any wasn't so much "meh, who cares?" as much as "this is
already an issue".  I'm also still failing to grasp why a resource quota
wouldn't stop this from happening.  As it is I already have code in my
second auto object that forbids starting a callout from non System code if
the number of free callouts globally (status(ST_COTABSIZE) -
(status(ST_NCOSHORT) + status(ST_NCOLONG))) is below a small percentage of
the table size.  Why won't that work to prevent a lowly user object from
consuming all the callouts to the point of sabotaging my System code?

Either there's been a misunderstanding or I'm still missing something.


> I have honestly reached the end of my patience with you.  I will not
> be participating in any further discussions with you on the subject.
>

As you wish.  If clearing up this misunderstanding doesn't help matters
then I apologize.


> Regards,
> Felix Croes
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd