----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Concurrent Futures


> On 30/10/2007, Giovanni Corriga <giovanni at corriga.net> wrote:
>> Il giorno lun, 29/10/2007 alle 13.34 -0800, Andreas Raab ha scritto:
>>
>> > Not "all messages sends". Only messages between concurrent entities
>> > (islands). This is the main difference to the all-out actors model
>> > (where each object is its own unit of concurrency) and has the 
>> > advantage
>> > that you can reuse all of todays single-threaded code.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how much work do you think it would be necessary
>> to port the Islands system to the standard Squeak image?
>>
>>         Giovanni
>>
> This is what i mean. There is a BIG difference between concurrency
> (parallel execution with shared memory) and distributed computing.
> An 'islands' is fitting good for distributed computing, but does they
> fit for concurrent parallel execution? I doubt.

Igor, where would you place concurrency with disjoint memories?

Would assigning objects to specific processes, within a shared memory, such 
that only those processes could mutate that object and the processes were 
non-interruptable and non-waitable, would that be sufficient to make it 
disjoint?  Imagine that every object reference (header) was assigned to a 
specific Vat, and only processes within that Vat could interact with that 
object.  All msg sends to that object, from other Vats, would be eventually 
scheduled with that object's Vat.

Rob