[REBOL] Re: P2P Q&A
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 2-Oct-2001 14:29
> 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 ....