[MUD-Dev] Re: [Java] multithreading: update and a question

[Vadim Tkachenko]

Ben Greear wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Vadim Tkachenko wrote:

[skipped]

> > See, there's a drawback - the architecture solutions for one/one,
> > many/one and many/many are different. Java becomes a curse
> > portability-wise, because it's SUPPOSED to behave in the same way, but
> > depending on the platform implementation different people working on
> > different platforms will lose their (voice fibers? what's the English
> > term? am I making myself clear here?) shouting and trying to convince
> > each other in what sucks and what rules.
> 
> Vocal cords I think you meant! :)

AAAAAAAA! This is what I was looking for! :-)

> After seeing the numbers for Clustering (ie the Beowulf Supercomputer
> they built at NASA), I think we might see clustered boxes before
> wide-spread dual+ CPU stuff.  This will probably remain in the Linux
> world, as opposed to Win95 (NT might cluster one day.)

Well, like I said, it's an explosive stuff, but I've just read the
article at
http://www.ncworldmag.com/ncworld/ncw-06-1998/ncw-06-lastten.html, still
under impression... That was about thin clients... Exactly the kind of
stuff we're talking here sometimes.

> Hrm, "thread" at process level, use UDP or TCP for communication layer,
> seems very portable to me.

I run like hell from UDP and TCP and try to generalize my communications
as streams (which more like TCP).

> Can always use lighter threads within each process thread..  Then can
> take advantage of clustering and or multi-cpu boxes...
> 
> Hrm, not making much sense even to myself....

Plan9, anyone? Stop smiling, time to laugh seriously...

> Ben

--
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