<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Igor Stasenko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Sorry for blowing up this thread. :)<br>
<br>
The VW implementation actually is very close to my draft idea, to fork<br>
new process for each #finalize,<br>
so it won't interfere with others, and on error, it won't stop stones rolling:<br>
executors do: [:ex | [ ex finalize ] fork ].<br>
<br>
If there's no objections, we could arm this idea (use forked process,<br>
close to what VW does).<br>
Or should we do the hard way and avoid forking?<br>
<br>
P.S. btw, are we guilty already for violating copyright law here by<br>
looking at VW code? :)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. They haven't patented the algorithm. The code is freely accessible (its from vw non-commercial). Just don't copy the code. </div><div><br></div><div>
best,</div><div>Eliot</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Best regards,<br>
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>