On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 16:16:36 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I would send a message to terminate to thread1, which would in
turn send a similar message to any threads it has started, wait
until they've all stopped (maybe with a time-out), then return.
I.e. every thread knows how to cleanly terminate itself when
instructed, so you just send a terminate message down the tree
of threads and then wait for the effects to bubble back up to
main.
Thanks. I was thinking the same when I gave it a second thought
on my way home. Instead of having a central pool, every thread is
responsible for its own threads. So main only needs to care about
the initial thread. That's the theory, I'll have to see how this
works in reality.
