On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Chris" == Chris Muller ma.chris.m@gmail.com writes:
Chris> I agree with Eliot about the merit of the approach where, when one Chris> approach permits the other so that, effectively, both are available at Chris> the image, but the other approach does not, that there is merit in the Chris> approach that provides choice up in the image-level. Given my limited Chris> experience, however, I still cannot see a use-case where such Chris> fine-grained control is useful, so "bug" is a stronger word than I Chris> would know to use at this point..
It would be nice to presume that if I'm running, I'll stay running, interrupted only by either a higher priority process, or me saying "yield".
Or blocking on a mutex, or waiting for bytes from a socket or a file, or etc. etc.
Why would it "be nice" to be able to presume that? A couple of use-cases have been proposed, and upon examination, neither one is facilitated by making the presumption. What's a concrete use-case where this scheduling behavior pays its way? I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
In my opinion, there's too many possible gotchas in this approach to rely on it as a general mechanism for managing concurrency.
Cheers, Josh