On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:52:58 +0100, Philippe Marschall wrote:

> 2009/2/22 Klaus D. Witzel :
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:36:30 +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> Update.
>>> you can download binaries from here
>>>
>>> ftp://ftp.squeak.org/HydraVM/latest_builds/win32/HydraVM-bin-22.02.2009.zip
>>>
>>
>> Let me add 2-3 bits: ...
[...]
>>
>> You Smalltalkers may have other Smalltalk processes that you want to  
>> run in
>> parallel on their own native thread; let us know how we can help you  
>> with
>> that.
>
> Well I have this web framework thingy where each http connection runs
> in it's own process. Request processing is quite fast, sometimes below
> a millisecond. There is potentially a lot sharing going on between
> those connections for configuration, sessions, continuations and
> stuff.

Yeah we thought about that, after exchanging some Qs+As with Lukas (and/or  
you?) during last Camp Smalltalk, for the general case for Hydra.

Several things are competing for attention/resolution/prototypical work:

1) some [accepted] Socket (and its OS dependent bits) can "belong" only to  
one native thread (= independent .image) in Hydra. Is this compatible with  
your web framework's requirements.

2) it must be possible for one native thread to accept a Socket, for  
another one to read/write it and get rid of it (and of its OS dependent  
bits). This is not a problem for us at the Smalltalk language/heap level  
but, until now I did't find an OS guy who said "this works, with  
guarantee, on these XYZ platforms".

3) when your web framework+app depends on a database "whatsoever", how is  
this to be shared (if sharing is really needed) between multiple native  
threads.

4) put yours here

/Klaus

> Cheers
> Philippe
>

-- 
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".  
Albert Einstein