[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

ev at lists.iotivity.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com Cc: Light, John J; Lankswert, Patrick; Keane, Erich Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- On Monday 27 April 2015 10:50:23 ASHOKBABU CHANNA wrote: > By just eliminating the threads we might be simplifying the code but > it

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

On Tuesday 28 April 2015 07:33:39 Light, John J wrote: > Thank you, Thiago, for pointing that out. > > I will add that many robust, well-written C/C++ programs don't set > O_NONBLOCK yet never block, through careful use of select. That is true, though I still advise using O_NONBLOCK. The one cas

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201504281122569_04A24XEV.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201504281010213_QKNMBDIF.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

On Tuesday 28 April 2015 01:11:00 ASHOKBABU CHANNA wrote: > Unix I/O is asynchronous by nature or can be made so by setting the > O_NONBLOCK flag. > It is possible only with IP stacks but may not be with other connectivity?s > such as BLE and BT and future transports. I would argue that such an A

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Jon A. Cruz Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:03 AM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- Additionally, pulling out thread creation from the lower

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

On Monday 27 April 2015 10:50:23 ASHOKBABU CHANNA wrote: > By just eliminating the threads we might be simplifying the code but it > might cause lot of blocking issues. Multi thread concept itself derived to > eliminate the blocking of I/O operations. That's actually incorrect. It's what a lot of

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

t; Ashok > > --- Original Message --- > > Sender : Keane, Erich > > Date : Apr 25, 2015 06:29 (GMT+09:00) > > Title : Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- > > > > Hi Pat/all: > > I've put together review 832: >

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

2015 3:50 AM To: Light, John J; Lankswert, Patrick; Keane, Erich; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- By just eliminating the threads we might be simplifying the code but it might cause lot of blocking issues. Multi thread concept

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

Erich; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- > > > By just eliminating the threads we might be simplifying the code but it might cause lot of blocking issues. > > Multi thread concept itself derived to eliminate

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201504271950735_QKNMBDIF.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201504271938344_QKNMBDIF.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201504271004574_93BIV0UV.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

an think of involve a lot more code. > > :( > > Pat > > > -Original Message- > > From: Keane, Erich > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:35 PM > > To: Lankswert, Patrick > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Macieira, Thiago > > Subjec

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

ginal Message- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Light, John J > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:16 AM > To: Keane, Erich; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal an

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

re code. > > :( > > Pat > > > -Original Message- > > From: Keane, Erich > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:35 PM > > To: Lankswert, Patrick > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Macieira, Thiago > > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and threa

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

t: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:35 PM > To: Lankswert, Patrick > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Macieira, Thiago > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- > > The current use case doesn't actually need an explicit "Join". The > i

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

dev- > > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:38 PM > > To: Macieira, Thiago > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- > > > > On

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

ounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Light, John J > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:16 AM > To: Keane, Erich; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- > > Comme

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

; From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:38 PM > To: Macieira, Thiago > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool im

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 00:02 -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday 23 April 2015 21:18:11 Keane, Erich wrote: > > Another alternative that I thought of based on Ashok's feedback is an > > unlimited pool-thread system (essentially functionally like the glib > > implementation, since the thread_

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:18 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: [dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation- Hi all- As many know, I've

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

On Thursday 23 April 2015 21:18:11 Keane, Erich wrote: > Another alternative that I thought of based on Ashok's feedback is an > unlimited pool-thread system (essentially functionally like the glib > implementation, since the thread_count is greater than requested > threads), where the threads list

[dev] GLib removal and thread-pool implementation-

Hi all- As many know, I've been working to remove glib as a compilation dependency for non-tizen systems. I've done this in review 747: https://gerrit.iotivity.org/gerrit/#/c/747 My concern is with my threadpool implementation. The implementation in 747 is merely a dispatcher, starting and detac