[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Joshua Allen scripsit:

> Overall, I think the tradeoff is good for two reasons.  First is that
> it makes things easier for the 80% of programmers (80% of whom still
> haven't done any XML programming yet :-)).  Second, the things like
> buffer synchronization, worker threads, and so on are risks to platform
> stability and performance if done incorrectly.  The code example above
> is a nice, tight, loop -- it is hard for users to screw it up in a way
> that hurts the overall system.  And while that means that vendors like
> MSFT bear more direct responsibility for any threading/buffering issues,
> it also means that we have more direct control over these issues and can
> presumably fix or improve better.  It also means that we can do work in
> the runtime and programming model to make it a lot easier for component
> vendors to get their own optimized async/buffering (or even some naïve
> version "for free"), all while hiding this from most developers.

Welcome to Unix pipelines.  It's been a long, long route back home.

"Distributed coarse-grained data flow rulez!"
	--me

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan@r...>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              http://www.reutershealth.com
                Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
                Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member