Thank you very much for the explanations. I will go for Fork/join. Anybody is working on a clojure wrapper?
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: > On 17 Dec 2010, at 19:47, nicolas.o...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> How about futures? They are in clojure.core and can be used for much the >>> same purposes as Fork/Join, unless your individual tasks are so small that >>> the performance advantage of Fork/Join makes a difference. >>> >> >> Thank you for this suggestion. I thought a bit, and I wonder whether >> it can result in too many thread being forked or thread starvation >> deadlock in my situation. >> >> Does future fork a thread per task? > > A future is submitted to the same thread pool used by send-off for agents. > This is a thread pool of unlimited size, so there is in principle a risk of > many threads being started if you run futures faster then they can finish, > or if many of them end up blocking. If you use a recursive-decomposition > approach, fork/join is likely to be a better choice because it was designed > for that kind of pattern. But there is no risk of deadlock or thread > starvation. > > Konrad. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
