--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_=D6nnerby?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The new multithread-features will be great. > > Do you think that it will be better to share one connection between all > > theads in an application or is better to have each thread open a new > > connection and use the sqlite3_enable_shared_cache? > > I think you will be much much better off to put every > thread it is own private address space. In other words, > turn each thread into a separate process. Threads are > an invention of the devil. Stay as far away from these > fiendish abominations as you can get.
:-) >From a library maker's point of view, I can see your point. But from a library user's perspective, it's often more convenient to use threads over a multi-process approach. Event-based asynchronous coding tends to turn your code inside out. Many users like the simpler linear style of coding within a thread that keeps business logic together - the Java way. Multi-threading headaches typically stem from manual shared memory coordination. Here's one alternative to mutexes that's getting some attention, but probably needs built-in language support to be effective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
