--- "Miller, Raul D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oleg Kobchenko wrote: > > Because J instance is not re-enterable from > > different threads, as shown, we need different J > > instances, one per thread. > > Agreed. > > > To start a thread, we need a callback: different > > callbacks (call addresses) for different thread-instances. > > I disagree. > > To start a new thread in an existing process, something > like this might be necessary. However, I believe J > currently is designed around 1 J thread per process. > I believe that many aspects of the existing J implementations > depend on this design.
I believe this not true, or it will be a big disappointment. I always assumed that you can run several J instances on different threads simultaneously. One big example is ASP and ASP.NET: I tested it and it worked. Another example is my jasync (async.ijs), which with a help of external callback, encapslating J instance on its stack, is also able to do it. (All with reasonable concurrency guards like mutexes for file, shared mapped vars etc. operations.) > Thus, to start a new J thread (control stack), you need > to start a J instance, which in turn means starting a > new process (independent writable virtual memory representation > of the machine). Different processes is outside of this scope. With the assumtion above, the problem is to find a solution for the cdcb problem. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
