BrowserUK wrote: > > -there are the interpreter processes. > > Inventing (overloaded) terminology will just create confusion. Very > > unhelpful in a context that suffers more than its fair share already.
Okay, I should probably call them "Actors" to use a more precise terminology - since this is highly inspired in two "Actor Model" languages. > > - The interpreter implements a scheduler, just like POE. > > POE does *NOT* implement a "scheduler". Okay, mentioning POE was just a side comment, it doesn't interfere directly in the model. > > -3 - The scheduler, ulike POE, should be able to schedule in > > several OS threads, such that any OS thread may raise any > > waiting process. > > And how are you going to implement that? That was the part I took directly from the inspiring languages, just take a look in how Erlang and the IO language schedule their actors. > > The only way would be for there to be multiple concurrent (kernel > > threaded) instances of the state-machine running sharing (as in shared > > state concurrency) their controlling state. But maybe each actor is tied to a particular OS thread, which would simplify a bit... Also, it is possible to suspend an "actor" in order to implement a time-sharing scheduler as well... daniel
