view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

share/SpamAssassin/easy_ham/00477.ae6b0e13cfb834b905857a31327dda32  view on Meta::CPAN

From fork-admin@xent.com  Sat Sep  7 21:52:42 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8281416F18
	for <jm@localhost>; Sat,  7 Sep 2002 21:52:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 07 Sep 2002 21:52:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g86KLLC22654 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:21:21 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 21833294287; Fri,  6 Sep 2002 13:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pm0-8.sba1.netlojix.net
    [207.71.218.8]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EC929427E for
    <fork@xent.com>; Fri,  6 Sep 2002 13:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dave@localhost) by maltesecat (8.8.7/8.8.7a) id NAA21491;
    Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:25:33 -0700
Message-Id: <200209062025.NAA21491@maltesecat>
To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: Re: asynchronous I/O (was Re: Gasp!)
In-Reply-To: Message from fork-request@xent.com of
    "Fri, 06 Sep 2002 06:25:37 PDT."
    <20020906132537.6311.58517.Mailman@lair.xent.com>
From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:25:32 -0700



> Wrong, [VMS-like async io] makes a huge difference in even what I
> consider small programs.

So it sounds as if, to your thinking,
most useful apps are also trivial. 
Unless each key on my keyboard were
(to the apps) distinct event sources,
I can't think of any of my usual job
mix that would need hundreds, or even
tens, of async requests; perhaps you
can explain how nontrivial apps will
be compellingly useful? 

> but it's still not built in, who knows when it will be. The point is it's
> not portable in either case.

Does that lack of portability imply it
isn't generally useful?  (When it was
apparent that TCP networks were useful,
berkeley sockets could be found even
on VMS and Win 3.1 boxen)

Why would early Unix have run with the
idea that, if one wishes to do multiple
things at the same time, one can use a
group of processes to do them?

- they had Multics as a counterexample?

- in the days of tiny memories and tapes,
  people were more accustomed to writing
  programs that didn't run entirely in a
  single address space?

- one is a great number for an interface,
  as log(1) is 0, and specification can
  be implicit?

- some combination of the above?