From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741FBBA7 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:51:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k17KpGoi032219 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:51:17 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA25830 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:51:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from uproxy.gmail.com (uproxy.gmail.com [66.249.92.193]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k17KpFSb003914 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:51:16 +0100 Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id c2so84296ugf for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=swxE6ZWIe+WpT/qyZqHGm6TpqiodcPBQNP1ilVWfgrnCBiQ5/GvmfCTn1+Qm/06hduQNzC17+YHnEXx8vruKA5tZqH9oKFNvVNpdwWJ8aIC8nhNCZuO2oE+ryRSkvNgbzjCq8tRNlNc1tyMghvNYFeQ9BfJy6vCc9bbdxqu+WJk= Received: by 10.49.80.10 with SMTP id h10mr1694826nfl; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.42.1 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6b8a91420602071251gcce7a3cx@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:51:15 +0100 From: Remi Vanicat To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: async networking In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <1139129530.15565.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1139160736.10812.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1139288125.19213.36.camel@rosella> <1139338868.12287.185.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43E90844.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43E90844.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 async:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 labltk:01 lablgtk:01 lablgtk:01 wrote:01 interfaces:01 kernel:01 remi:01 remi:01 vanicat:02 vanicat:02 loops:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 2006/2/7, Bardur Arantsson : > Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > Yes, the default Equeue implementation bases simply on select(). It is, > > however, possible to develop alternate implementations. Currently, ther= e > > are three of them which integrate into the event loops of labltk, > > lablgtk1 and lablgtk2. One could, for example, easily add an > > implementation for advanced kernel interfaces like epoll. > > Actually, it might be quite interesting to see one based on > poll()/epoll(), but I suspect it wouldn't matter much compared to all > the other stuff that's going in the Equeue code. This is just a very > vague hunch, though. I believe that labgtk (and so equeue over lablgtk) use poll. Note that you are adding another layer : glib, so you might not have gain a lot.