the Action always
see it as 1? This is what got me asking if map:parts are constructed
in parallel.
I'd appreciate all of your insights,
Sonny
From: Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel?
Date
the Action always see it as 1?
This is what got me asking if map:parts are constructed in parallel.
I'd appreciate all of your insights,
Sonny
From: Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel?
Date: Sun, 10
Sonny,
I've taken a look at the source for the Aggregator. In that code there's no reference
to
threading, however it does use a parser to interpret the sources that the map:part
nodes refer to. It is possible that those parsers are multi-threaded, and right now
finding that out is beyond my
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel?
Thanks for examining the code for me Upayavira. I saw another post in
the archives explaining why it'd be too hard for the map:parts to be
constructed
appreciate all of your insights,
Sonny
From: Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel?
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:56:27 +0100
Sonny,
I've taken a look at the source for the Aggregator
Kopie:
Thema: Re: Re: [resent] map:part's processed
in parallel?
11.08.2003
hi,
the parts are not processed in parallel. The are processed in the order they
apear in the sitemap.
Christoph
- Original Message -
From: Sonny Sukumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 AM
Subject: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel
insights,
Sonny
From: Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [resent] map:part's processed in parallel?
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:56:27 +0100
Sonny,
I've taken a look at the source for the Aggregator. In that code there's
no
reference to
threading
