[Seaside-dev] Seaside vs I18N/L10N vs VW

[Martin Kobetic]

Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> be quite frustrating. Moreover based on what I read in other
>> discussions here, the justification for this particular process seems
>> rather weak. Forking even lightweight processes for no good
>> reason is just plain wasteful, especially on server side. And that's
>> again ignoring all the other issues I mentioned besides runtime costs.
> 
> Of course Seaside doesn't fork this process just for the fun of it.

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I was responding to Phillipe's "processes are cheap". I'm not convinced the arguments I've read so far outweigh the drawbacks, but I do realize that is rather subjective judgement call and I'm fine with others feeling otherwise.

> What you have there is, in my opinion, a very well thought and
> efficient implementation of bounded continuations. Moreover, as a nice
> side effect, we get the possibility to terminate run-off processes.

I don't understand the termination argument. Is there a problem to terminate the process that spawned one from the monitor? It's not likely that it could complete in some meaningful way after all, so arguably it should be terminated as well anyway.

> Of course we could achieve the same thing by marking/remembering that
> particular stack-frame somehow and bound all continuations to this
> particular frame, but it would certainly not ease the implementation
> and portability.

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Martin