>From: Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Multiple processes using #nextPutAll:
>Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 21:55:10 +0200
>
>Perhaps we're talking past each other. Anyway, this shouldn't matter  for 
>the problem at hand.

Or I'm not being clear enough. :)

>>Yes, much like how modern OS'es work.  It's just that I was under  the 
>>impression that once the current process is interrupted that  another at 
>>that same priority would be given a chance to run.
>
>Yes, that's what I wrote.

What I meant here is (and why this is relevant for the problem at hand):

If he forks the first one it is at some priority.  Then he forks the next at 
the same priority.  If the first one takes enough time (presumably around 40 
ms) it will get preempted by the UI handlers, timer handlers or something.  
Now, when the higher priority processes are finished if it goes back to the 
one it was running before (i.e. the first one that was forked) then yes, 
you're right that it wont matter.  But if it picks another from that list 
then he can cause the second thread to run while the first is still in the 
loop.  This is what I was trying to say. :)

_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. 
It’s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07