as someone who's trying to give up smoking, had to contribute to this
thread.
- first of all the generalisation about using multiple threads is
misguided. its low level work, you need to be careful, and applications
need to be architected so that most programmers working on the project
don't need to worry about multithreading issues. using multiple processes
has similiar problems when trying to access shared resources - race
conditions, deadlocks etc. the only obvious difference is that in a
multi-process approach you don't get to share the same memory structures by
default, and so don't need semaphores etc guarding them.
- second, i wish people would keep politics and religion out of this forum
(""OS" and ""windows" in the same sentence ??? Ha.") windows has
contributed more to the economic health of this planet that any other
single technology.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wiredUniverse.com
To
15/07/2004 18:57 CARIOTOGLOU MIKE
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
wiredUniverse.com Re: [sqlite] sqliteOsEnterMutex()
and sqliteOsLeaveMutex()
CARIOTOGLOU MIKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unsolicited advice: Your best bet is to run no more than one thread
>> in each process. If you need multiple threads, create multiple
>> processes to contain them. Writing applications with multiple
>> threads in the same address space is like smoking cigarettes: it
>> gives you a buzz, but in the long run it is deadly. Just say "no".
>>
>>
>> --
>> D. Richard Hipp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 704.948.4565
>>
> that depends on the OS. if you do that in windows, for say, a web server,
> you will kill the envrironment pretty soon,
> as processes are expensive. it would be fine on Unix, I am told.
"OS" and ""windows" in the same sentence ??? Ha. If you try to use a toy
as
a real tool for real work, it's bound to break.
(sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
Derrell
