AFAIK it's really only relevant when you're dealing with computationally
heavy and long running things that need to be multi threaded/forked to be
able to utilize multiple CPU cores. Then these processes might need to
coordinate via, or put results in, a shared space.
When it comes to your usual w
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:22:46PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> This section seems to imply though that it would be possible to implement
> STM between forked processes
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch07s02.html#id2922148 (the
> shared memory section) or?
>
> Or maybe it already
Since my only experience of STM is through Clojure and threads I don't even
know if a similar locking mechanism can be implemented in PicoLisp since
here we have forked processes instead.
As usual my knowledge of Unix/Linux internals is too lacking to say anything
definite, despite having recently
Hi Henrik,
> The fact that Clojure enforces this way of working is seen as one of it's
> greatest virtues and strengths. If PicoLisp's boss works in the same way you
> have the same situation where you don't have to worry about inconsistent
> data.
In PicoLisp you usually don't have to worry abou
End result of 9 of course.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> In Clojure there are a few constructs and functions to handle them that
> make use of this to keep multithreaded apps sane: http://clojure.org/refs
>
> However, in the course of developing web apps I've only use
In Clojure there are a few constructs and functions to handle them that make
use of this to keep multithreaded apps sane: http://clojure.org/refs
However, in the course of developing web apps I've only used them when I
want different request to share a piece of storage that needs to be updated
ver
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:57:49PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:04:21PM +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > > ATM I cannot see how this could be useful. PicoLisp has no threads, and
> >
> > If you defined "threads" less strict, such that processes could be
> > "threads
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:04:21PM +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > ATM I cannot see how this could be useful. PicoLisp has no threads, and
>
> If you defined "threads" less strict, such that processes could be "threads",
> could it make sense then?
Only if some shared/mapped memory is used, as f
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Jakob,
>
> > As seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory
>
> ATM I cannot see how this could be useful. PicoLisp has no threads, and
If you defined "threads" less strict, such that processes could
Hi Jakob,
> As seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory
ATM I cannot see how this could be useful. PicoLisp has no threads, and
in the context of database transactions it seems to make no sense in
PicoLisp's object caching model.
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailt
As seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory
I noticed that Common Lisp and other Lisps have support for transactional
memory.
I read this and became curious:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2011/08/ibms-new-transactional-memory-make-or-break-time-for-multithr
11 matches
Mail list logo
