[dmd-concurrency] Shutdown protocol

Kevin Bealer kevinbealer at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 14:26:33 PST 2010


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com>wrote:

> Kevin Bealer wrote:
>
>> So lets say that threads will normally fall into the three camps, that
>> I'll call producers, filters and processors.
>>
> [snip]
>
> Main could check if it has any dependents, if desired... (these last bits
>> is kind of off the cuff, so maybe there are huge problems with them.)
>>
>
> This makes sense, but at this point I'd avoid classifications that don't
> have a precedent. If Erlang made it without thread kinds, we should too.
>
>
>
> Andrei
>

Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that threads be labelled as to what type
they are and handled differently by the language or system.  I'm just
defining some terms so that I can reason about their behavior.  My argument
was just that a user writing main typically needs to keep track of the
producers in some way to insure that his design behaved predictably.

Now that I mention it, this really includes any object that might produce an
important flow of data without being triggered to do so by an incoming
message.  Message originators might be a better term than Producers.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-concurrency/attachments/20100121/b46f36dd/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the dmd-concurrency mailing list