[MUD-Dev] Re: lurker emerges

[Vadim Tkachenko]

Chris Gray wrote:
> 
> [Vadim Tkachenko:]
> 
> [Double buffering:]
> 
>  >I could be wrong, but I wish it rest in piece - it was a performance
>  >tuning nightmare. Either your I/O theread hogs all the resources looping
>  >idle, waiting for the input, or it lags because of the wrong priority
>  >set or bad timing.
>  >
>  >For me, the blocking I/O and a possibility to interrupt it (exceptions)
>  >is a blessing.
>  >
>  >Comments, anyone?

[acknowledged, skipped]

> In general, the lack of proper asynchonous I/O is one of my strongest
> complaints about UNIX.

Would it change the perception if I say I forgot to mention that the
only case I accept even the blocking I/O is in a thread dedicated to
reading/writing the data? I guess, it may be considered as anvanced
asynchronous I/O - I can process the data I read/write in the same
thread I read/write it.

Generally, what is it about, I guess, is half-sync/half-async design
pattern described in the document reference to which was posted by Alex
Oren (Design patterns for concurrent, parallel and distributed systems)
- THANKS, Alex, it was great.

Other thought is - how often do you need the *DUMB* asynchronous I/O - I
mean, without a possibilty to process the data, as (if I remember it
right) it happens in WinNT API? I've been working with that API for
quite a while and honestly don't remember myself actively using it.

> Chris Gray     cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA

--
Still alive and smile stays on,
Vadim Tkachenko <vt at freehold.crocodile.org>
--
UNIX _is_ user friendly, he's just very picky about who his friends are