<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/23/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jason Johnson</b> <<a href="mailto:jason.johnson.081@gmail.com">jason.johnson.081@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0; margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-left: 0.80ex; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex">
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Michael van der Gulik<br> <<a href="mailto:mikevdg@gmail.com">mikevdg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > I disagree about it being the right approach in the long term.<br><br><br>
The correct mid-term approach is to do what Erlang did: Have one<br> image, and one OS-thread per *schedular*. Then when new processes run<br> they get a particular scheduler. <br></blockquote></div><br><br>I'd agree on that one.<br>
<br>Gulik.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg</a><br><a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a>