On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:28:29PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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.
Threads aren't cheap. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
