Re: [Edbrowse-dev] Threads

[Adam Thompson <arthompson1990@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:16:36PM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote:
> I think a seg fault in any thread brings down the entire process -
> so perhaps leaning a little towards separate processes,
> if we do separate functionality.

Indeed, that was my thinking. Although threads are lighter in terms of overhead, they also don't provide the isolation and flexibility we need.

> Can still use ipc, in its various forms, for communication,
> even common memory for global or session variables,
> though I don't know how well ipc ports to windows.

I'm not sure about portability either (see earlier emails)
but for the minute I've done some work with this stuff on Linux before and have
a few ideas how we could put things together.

> Sure, processes are less efficient than threds,
> but we're not doing a number crunching simulation here.

Yeah, and as stated above, we get more flexibility with processes.

Cheers,
Adam.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]