> On 16-02-2017, at 3:54 AM, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
> 
> On 15/02/17 22:34, tim Rowledge wrote:
>> Hi Göran!
>> 
>>> On 15-02-2017, at 3:50 AM, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>>> I wrote the current incarnation of SocketStream and I intentionally
>>> did not add any semaphore/mutex for protections. And yes, the
>>> SocketStream has internal state to know positions in buffers etc
>>> etc - so NO, you should not use two Processes with the same
>>> SocketStream.
>>> 
>>> Having said that...  if you have one process only writing and one
>>> only reading - you may get away with it - IIRC (no promises) the
>>> inBuffer and outBuffer (and associated ivars) may be 100%
>>> separated.
>> 
>> A single process to write and another to read, both at same priority
>> so only one can be  doing stuff at once.
> 
> Mmmm, those two will not preempt each other - but other processes with higher prio preempt them (right?), so perhaps I am daft but doesn't that mean they will switch anyway (potentially in the middle of a method etc)?

If I’ve remembered right, the scheduling sticks a suspended process at at the *front* of the queue these days, not the back as was the case when us dinosaurs first roamed the Earth. The idea being to make sure that a process interrupted by a quick timer job gets back to its work sooner rather than later.

But I’ve been wrong before...


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building