[Stackless] Proposed modification WRT threading and scheduling

Christian Tismer tismer at stackless.com
Thu Jan 10 00:23:49 CET 2008


Richard Tew wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 11:57 AM, Arnar Birgisson <arnarbi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2008 8:14 PM, Jeff Senn <senn at maya.com> wrote:
>>> ALWAYS do that.  And I do believe that returning is the "correct"
>>> decision because it leaves
>>> the higher-level scheduling up to the implementor.  (You could, for
>>> instance as Arnar implies,
>>> wrap .run() in a loop with time.sleep())
>> I agree, keep the behavior consistent and leave it up to the caller of
>> run() to reinvoke if desired.
> 
> I am tempted to say it isn't worth breaking backwards compatibility
> and no-one really noticed it anyway.  But I had no clue why the
> scheduler locked up and had to run Stackless under a debugger in order
> to realise this was how it really worked.
> 
> I would be for also changing this behaviour, but am reticent to do so
> without Christian's go ahead.  Any thoughts Christian?

I will answer all the open questions, ASAP. There is a lot happening,
I'm leaving for LA again, tomorrow.
Please feel free to remind me if I don't react in a few days.

cheers ´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/




More information about the Stackless mailing list