Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:23:30PM +0100, Jeremy Harris wrote:
- I'd have been tempted to stick with a synchronous interface for the
initial development; lose the event notification. Is there significant
demand from potential customers, which wouldn't be satisfied by them
creating threads?
It's easier to develop an async API and layer sync on top than to first
develop a sync API and later re-whack it into an async API.
Of course, it's easier to develop a sync API and stop there, but really,
we need async interfaces -- everything seems to nowadays (from GUI
programming, starting decades ago, to Ajax now).
That is certainly true of many APIs that were designed to operate in the
absence of threading. However, a kernel API where threads are readily
available probably shouldn't have to deal with the complexity of an
async. API, IMO.
-- Garrett
Nico
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
