This has been a very interesting thread for me.  I thought squeak did
time-slicing.  Are other smalltalks the same in not doing timeslicing?

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:50:46AM -0800, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> Daniel Salama <dsalama at user.net> wrote:
> 
> > Karl,
> > 
> > The problem I encountered is that while this method was executing, 
> > Squeak was completely unresponsive. I could not open the Process 
> > Browser, I could not do anything whatsoever in Squeak.
> Of course it was; there should be no surprise there at all. There is a
> single active process and it runs until it stops. You can make it stop
> temporarily by deliberately yielding occasioanlly which will give

What actions, or types of actions, are necessary to yield control?

> other processes a chance to hog the cpu for themselves - but if that
> other process doesn't play nice and yield occasionally you will still
> feel locked out.
> 
> There is not any round-robin or timeslicing scheduling done by default.
> You can implement it fairly simply (google is your friend and can find
> many news postings on the subject over many years) if you really need
> it. The potential danger with using such a modifed scheduling setup is
> that most of the image is not multi-thread safe. 

Sounds as if it would take a big overhaul to get reliable
multi-threading.

> 
> 
> tim

I had understood that squeak was being used (via seaside) for web
servers.  How do they manage to deal with processing many things at
once (I'm assuming they do)?

Ross Boylan