From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:21:50 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <174A3DE4FB57AB50A9230C11@[192.168.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <9ab217670906111634m735febcfsaac86e35e9a7d635@mail.gmail.com> References: <71551546922daa465e9934a8b3f4b90e@quanstro.net> <9ab217670906111634m735febcfsaac86e35e9a7d635@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] critique of sockets API Topicbox-Message-UUID: 09d20d0c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > s/could be/is/ > > From real world product experience across multiple operating systems > and architectures. So there is at least one example to support the case for callbacks. I am pretty convinced there are many more examples. --On Thursday, June 11, 2009 19:34 -0400 "Devon H. O'Dell" wrote: > 2009/6/11 Eris Discordia : >>> but given that plan 9 is about having a system that's easy >>> to understand and modify, i would think that it would be >>> tough to demonstrate that asyncronous i/o or callbacks >>> could make the system (or even applications) simplier. >>> i doubt that they would make the system more efficient, >>> either. >>> >>> do you have examples that demonstrate either? >> >> I can't claim I have anything in code which would be necessary for an >> actual demonstration or for going beyond the "talk talk talk" stage. I >> can, however, present one simple case: in some applications asynchronous >> name resolving is a must and it can be realized by either of threads or >> callbacks. Crawlers and scanners come to mind. Spawning threads for DNS >> requests could be more costly than registering a set of callbacks within >> one thread and then harvesting the results within that same thread. > > s/could be/is/ > > From real world product experience across multiple operating systems > and architectures. >