Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search


From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 2-Oct-2001 14:29

[holger--rebol--com] wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 08:05:31AM +0200, Petr Krenzelok wrote: > > > > But - according to Holger (IIRC), RT will not add real multi-threading support, > > because there is some problem in regards to multiplatform issue. Only some kind of > > soft-multi-threading is planned iirc. > > No, I never said that. I am not sure what you mean by real > multi-threading vs. soft multi-threading. We do plan to add support > for multi-threading, just not immediately.
Ah, I am sorry then, take my apology. Maybe I wrongly understood your following quote: On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:50:42PM +0200, Maarten Koopmans wrote: -> Doing things in the background suggests that you switch to a multithreaded -> stack-based machine? No, still single-threaded, but switching to a state machine-driven protocol engine, triggered from within 'wait and some other natives.
> > We don't need multi-threading that much if we are async wherever we can. And > > that's another problem: > > > > - Core lacks timers. Real timers, something like make timer! time-period. First I > > saw timers in faces, I was confused why kernel of system lacks timers. Several ppl > > already requested event system or timers in Core, but we were told to use View. > > Another thing planned for Core 3.0 is low-level port timeouts with 1 ms > granularity, at the handler level.
That's cool. As we speak probably some more distant future, are some multi-media related things thought of already? Some of us would be interested probably in knowing, how/where will View evolve from its current state .... -pekr-