From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <06439554cf2ab2600ed70356dbf35eb2@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:59:43 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <e5760b1ec598d2f3d6bec4bf4a892778@smgl.fr.eu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] dial and time out
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6ca50c72-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> it seemed safer at first if I didn't have to worry about the procs
> preempting each other (and appart from that dial() bottleneck, I don't
> need them to), that's why I started with threads. I was thinking of
> sticking to threads and not using procs until I really do need them. But
> yeah, no real good reason not to switch to procs if that's the best way
> to go in that case.

one can use ioproc(2).  though i tend to go for procs.

this is because i have a hard time understanding why
csp (and thus safety) wouldn't generally be used instead.
and when csp techniques aren't going to cut it, i find
it easier to understand a small amount of explicit locking,
because the interesting bits of contention are well-marked.

- erik