• From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:13:50 +0000

On 19/03/2012 14:44, Andrew Welch wrote:
> On 19 March 2012 14:36, John Cowan<cowan@m...>  wrote:
>> Andrew Welch scripsit:
>>
>>> As far as I know, as we all move towards functional programming we
>>> won't have to worry too much about it as it gets taken care of for us.
>> Good luck with that.
> Is that not the case?
>
Things get better, but the problem shifts.

For example, the next Saxon release will automatically do 
multi-threading for xsl:result-document (each output document is 
produced in parallel with the others). But I had a test case the other 
day where doing everything at the same time blew the heap, so I had to 
suppress the multi-threading in order to conserve memory. Automating the 
resource trade-offs is the next level, but with diminishing returns I 
don't know if it will ever happen. So users still need to know what's 
going on and turn the dials occasionally.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Using XML (or JSON) for inter-thread communication
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>

• References:
  • Using XML (or JSON) for inter-thread communication
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Using XML (or JSON) for inter-thread communication
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • Re: Using XML (or JSON) for inter-thread communication
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Using XML (or JSON) for inter-thread communication
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>