[Stackless] Explicit yield/break to Preemptive Stackless Loop

[Christian Tismer]

Jeff Senn wrote:
...
> Well... The feature I am using is to run a scheduler in the non-main
> (non-first) thread.  And I think that is very stable.  As for
> running schedulers in many threads at the same time, I have not done 
> much testing,
> but it seems like we would want that to work (even though the
> advantages are minimal due to the GIL).
> 
> When this came up before I did some testing about running the scheduler
> in one thread and then starting up helper threads to feed channels
> and this also seemed to work well.
> 
> So... I'm with Christian in not being *sure* that it will work, but
> also I see no reason why it shouldn't in theory.  I guess I propose
> we go ahead as if it should work, and start fixing "bugs" and see
> how hard it is... but we will definitely need Christian's expertise
> to help...

Well the point is that I'm not sure if this is well designed.
It was meant as a fall-back primarily, when things are going
to block. In a sense that was a compatibility decision.
But if you think the concept makes sense, let's go fot it.

ciao - chris

-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
tismerysoft GmbH             :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 802 86 56  mobile +49 173 24 18 776  fax +49 30 80 90 57 05
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/

_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless